Henry M. Fowler v. Emma Guschewsky

221 F.2d 878
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedMay 26, 1955
Docket12134
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 221 F.2d 878 (Henry M. Fowler v. Emma Guschewsky) 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
Henry M. Fowler v. Emma Guschewsky, 221 F.2d 878 (D.C. Cir. 1955).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The propounders of what purported to be last will and testament of Laura D. Shackelford appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia which denied probate, pursuant to a jury’s finding that Mrs. Shackelford lacked mental capacity to make a will, and that her execution of the document in question had been ob *879 tained by fraud and deceit, and by undue influence, duress or coercion.

Appellant says the court erred in permitting a certain deposition to be read in evidence, and that his cross-examination of a witness as to her interest was erroneously limited. He was also prejudiced, he says, by the fact that counsel for appellees constantly referred to a Dr. Cavanaugh and attempted to argue to the jury, that the doctor had examined Mrs. Shackelford, when the doctor’s testimony had theretofore been held inadmissible. Appellant also urges that the verdict was contrary to the evidence.

A careful consideration of the record convinces us that these contentions must be rejected. We see no error.

Affirmed.

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

Related

in Re: Thomas Lytle and Ellen Lytle
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
221 F.2d 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-m-fowler-v-emma-guschewsky-cadc-1955.