Estate of McKinney v. Hair

Court of Appeals of Texas

Estate of McKinney v. Hair

434 S.W.2d 217, 1968 Tex. App. LEXIS 2489

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 7, 1968

Docket4744

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 434 S.W.2d 217 (Estate of McKinney v. Hair) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estate of McKinney v. Hair, 434 S.W.2d 217, 1968 Tex. App. LEXIS 2489 (Tex. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

WILSON, Justice.

Proponent of a self-proved will appeals from a district court judgment denying probate on an instructed verdict.

The grounds of the motion for instructed verdict were (1) that there was no showing *218 the court had jurisdiction and venue, and (2) there was no showing the will had not been revoked.

Contestant’s position on the first ground is that there is no evidence to show testator was a resident of Falls County where the application was filed. He urges that the death certificate which shows decedent resided in that county was admitted for the limited purpose of showing the fact of death, and not to establish residence to show venue under Sec. 88 of the Texas Probate Code, V.A.T.S.

The will itself was admitted in evidence without objection. In it the testator recited: “I, Albert McKinney, of Falls County, Texas.” * * *

Recitals and declarations “in the will as to the testator’s residence ordinarily carry great weight, and will be accepted in the absence of a showing of a change of residence before death.” 95 C.J.S. Wills § 418, p. 344 and authorities cited. See Lacoste v. Odam, 26 Tex. 458, 459, 460; Armistead v. Benefield, Tex.Civ.App., 244 S.W. 391, syl. 3, writ dism.; Nichols v. Rowan, Tex.Civ.App., 422 S.W.2d 21, writ ref., n. r. e. We hold the record is sufficient to show residence, jurisdiction and-venue.

The second ground of the motion is equally untenable. The rebuttable presumption of continuity that the will has not been revoked meets proponent’s burden in this case. Contestant offered no evidence to overcome the presumption. There are no circumstances suggesting revocation or casting suspicion on the genuineness of the will. See Ashley v. Usher (Tex.Sup.1964) 384 S.W.2d 696, 698; McElroy v. Phink, 97 Tex. 147, 76 S.W. 753; Wilson v. Paulus, Tex.Com.App., 15 S.W.2d 571, 573; May v. Brown, 144 Tex, 350, 190 S.W.2d 715, 165 A.L.R. 1180; Womack v. Woodson, Tex.Civ.App., 169 S.W.2d 786; Redmond v. Redmond, Tex.Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 309.

It is not necessary to pass on appellant’s additional point.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

WILSON, Justice.

Proponent of a self-proved will appeals from a district court judgment denying probate on an instructed verdict.

The grounds of the motion for instructed verdict were (1) that there was no showing *218 the court had jurisdiction and venue, and (2) there was no showing the will had not been revoked.

Contestant’s position on the first ground is that there is no evidence to show testator was a resident of Falls County where the application was filed. He urges that the death certificate which shows decedent resided in that county was admitted for the limited purpose of showing the fact of death, and not to establish residence to show venue under Sec. 88 of the Texas Probate Code, V.A.T.S.

The will itself was admitted in evidence without objection. In it the testator recited: “I, Albert McKinney, of Falls County, Texas.” * * *

Recitals and declarations “in the will as to the testator’s residence ordinarily carry great weight, and will be accepted in the absence of a showing of a change of residence before death.” 95 C.J.S. Wills § 418, p. 344 and authorities cited. See Lacoste v. Odam, 26 Tex. 458, 459, 460; Armistead v. Benefield, Tex.Civ.App., 244 S.W. 391, syl. 3, writ dism.; Nichols v. Rowan, Tex.Civ.App., 422 S.W.2d 21, writ ref., n. r. e. We hold the record is sufficient to show residence, jurisdiction and-venue.

The second ground of the motion is equally untenable. The rebuttable presumption of continuity that the will has not been revoked meets proponent’s burden in this case. Contestant offered no evidence to overcome the presumption. There are no circumstances suggesting revocation or casting suspicion on the genuineness of the will. See Ashley v. Usher (Tex.Sup.1964) 384 S.W.2d 696, 698; McElroy v. Phink, 97 Tex. 147, 76 S.W. 753; Wilson v. Paulus, Tex.Com.App., 15 S.W.2d 571, 573; May v. Brown, 144 Tex, 350, 190 S.W.2d 715, 165 A.L.R. 1180; Womack v. Woodson, Tex.Civ.App., 169 S.W.2d 786; Redmond v. Redmond, Tex.Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 309.

It is not necessary to pass on appellant’s additional point.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

434 S.W.2d 217, 1968 Tex. App. LEXIS 2489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-mckinney-v-hair-texapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack