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

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 1, 1951

Docket10750_1

StatusPublished

This text of 193 F.2d 19 (Harris v. Ricketts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 F.2d 19, 89 U.S. App. D.C. 404, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-ricketts-cadc-1951.