In Re the Will of Wall

Supreme Court of North Carolina

In Re the Will of Wall

5 S.E.2d 837, 216 N.C. 805, 1939 N.C. LEXIS 90

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 13, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 5 S.E.2d 837 (In Re the Will of Wall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re the Will of Wall, 5 S.E.2d 837, 216 N.C. 805, 1939 N.C. LEXIS 90 (N.C. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Tbe testatrix married A. N. Wall, a widower with four children, and subsequently a child was born to this union. After her death a paper-writing purporting to be her last will and testament was probated in common form as a holograph will. It appeared that the will originally devised the real estate of the testatrix to her husband, A. N. Wall, if living, with the remainder over to his 4 children. When the paper was submitted for probate, it appeared that the figure “4” had been erased and the figure “5” written over it. The significant controversy at the trial was as to whether this figure “5” was in the handwriting of the supposed testatrix. It was agreed that the will, with the original figure “4” in it, was written prior to the birth of this child.

If the will could not be sustained as entirely in the handwriting of the testatrix and containing provision for this child, the latter, under the law, would inherit the' whole property as if no will had been made, since the 4 children of the husband were not of the blood of the testatrix. C. S., 4169; C. S., 1654. It ivas the contention of the caveator that the will had been altered without consent of the testatrix, and that the figure “5” was not in her handwriting.

There was no objection to the mode of trial or to the form of the issue submitted. Upon a stipulation between the parties an issue was submitted as to whether or not the figure “5” was in the handwriting of the supposed testatrix, and the jury answered the issue “No,” whereupon, judgment was rendered against the will, and from this the propounder appealed.

Closely examining the exceptive assignments of error, we are unable to see that they raise any question of law which might aid the propounder.

We find

No error.

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

Per Curiam.

Tbe testatrix married A. N. Wall, a widower with four children, and subsequently a child was born to this union. After her death a paper-writing purporting to be her last will and testament was probated in common form as a holograph will. It appeared that the will originally devised the real estate of the testatrix to her husband, A. N. Wall, if living, with the remainder over to his 4 children. When the paper was submitted for probate, it appeared that the figure “4” had been erased and the figure “5” written over it. The significant controversy at the trial was as to whether this figure “5” was in the handwriting of the supposed testatrix. It was agreed that the will, with the original figure “4” in it, was written prior to the birth of this child.

If the will could not be sustained as entirely in the handwriting of the testatrix and containing provision for this child, the latter, under the law, would inherit the' whole property as if no will had been made, since the 4 children of the husband were not of the blood of the testatrix. C. S., 4169; C. S., 1654. It ivas the contention of the caveator that the will had been altered without consent of the testatrix, and that the figure “5” was not in her handwriting.

There was no objection to the mode of trial or to the form of the issue submitted. Upon a stipulation between the parties an issue was submitted as to whether or not the figure “5” was in the handwriting of the supposed testatrix, and the jury answered the issue “No,” whereupon, judgment was rendered against the will, and from this the propounder appealed.

Closely examining the exceptive assignments of error, we are unable to see that they raise any question of law which might aid the propounder.

We find

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 S.E.2d 837, 216 N.C. 805, 1939 N.C. LEXIS 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-will-of-wall-nc-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack