Harris v. Ricketts

D.C. Circuit

Harris v. Ricketts

193 F.2d 19, 89 U.S. App. D.C. 404, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2853

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided November 1, 1951·No. 10750_1·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this suit to set aside a will, appellant’s chief contention is that statements *20 of the testator to the effect that he had no relatives were substantial evidence of testamentary incapacity and that the District Court therefore erred in directing a verdict upholding the will. The testator actually had relatives. But in the light of all the testimony we are not prepared to say the court erred in deciding that a jury would not be justified in finding the testator incompetent. The court might well think it clear that he knew of the existence of his relatives and merely adopted a picturesque way of saying that he preferred to ignore them. In our opinion there is no merit in appellant’s other contentions.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this suit to set aside a will, appellant’s chief contention is that statements *20 of the testator to the effect that he had no relatives were substantial evidence of testamentary incapacity and that the District Court therefore erred in directing a verdict upholding the will. The testator actually had relatives. But in the light of all the testimony we are not prepared to say the court erred in deciding that a jury would not be justified in finding the testator incompetent. The court might well think it clear that he knew of the existence of his relatives and merely adopted a picturesque way of saying that he preferred to ignore them. In our opinion there is no merit in appellant’s other contentions.

Affirmed.

Harris v. Ricketts, 193 F.2d 19, 89 U.S. App. D.C. 404, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2853 (D.C. Cir. 1951).

Pincite

193 F.2d 19 (Harris v. Ricketts) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.