In Re Will of Abee

Supreme Court of North Carolina

In Re Will of Abee

59 S.E. 700, 146 N.C. 273, 1907 N.C. LEXIS 39

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 11, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 59 S.E. 700 (In Re Will of Abee) 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 Will of Abee, 59 S.E. 700, 146 N.C. 273, 1907 N.C. LEXIS 39 (N.C. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

HoKb, J.

Tbe court below refused to allow tbe caveators to recall for further examination tbe witness W. B. Eeece, as to a conversation bad between tbe witness and tbe testator, in reference to wbicb, as stated in tbe case on appeal, “be bad *274 testified and, having been recalled, had again testified.” Our decisions are to the effect that this matter of recalling witnesses for further examination is in the discretion of the Judge presiding .at the trial, and his action in this respect is not open to review. Sutton v. Walters, 118 N. C., 495; Olive v. Olive, 95 N. C., 485.

It is contended by appellants that the Judge below did not make this ruling in the exercise of his discretion, but on the ground that he had no power to allow appellants to recall the witness, but we do not so interpret the order made. The court held that, on the facts stated, the right to recall a witness did not exist as a matter of law, and, in the exercise of its discretion, declined to permit that this should be done. The authorities cited, therefore, are decisive against appellants’ position.

It was further urged for error that his Honor held that there was no evidence tending to show undue influence. It is established with us that, in order to avoid a will on this ground, the influence complained of must be controlling and partake to some extent of the nature of fraud. Marshall v. Flinn, 49 N. C., 199 ; Wright v. Howe, 52 N. C., 412; Paine v. Roberts, 82 N. C., 451.

As held in Wright v. Howe, supra, “The influence which destroys the validity of ,a will is a fraudulent influence, controlling the mind of the testator so as to induce him to make a will which he would not otherwise have made.” It would serve no good purpose to go into any extended or detailed statement of the testimony. We have carefully read and considered it as given in the case on .appeal, and we fully concur with the trial Judge that there is no evidence tending to show undue influence, and are of opinion that the judgment establishing the validity of the will should be affirmed.

No Error.

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

HoKb, J.

Tbe court below refused to allow tbe caveators to recall for further examination tbe witness W. B. Eeece, as to a conversation bad between tbe witness and tbe testator, in reference to wbicb, as stated in tbe case on appeal, “be bad *274 testified and, having been recalled, had again testified.” Our decisions are to the effect that this matter of recalling witnesses for further examination is in the discretion of the Judge presiding .at the trial, and his action in this respect is not open to review. Sutton v. Walters, 118 N. C., 495; Olive v. Olive, 95 N. C., 485.

It is contended by appellants that the Judge below did not make this ruling in the exercise of his discretion, but on the ground that he had no power to allow appellants to recall the witness, but we do not so interpret the order made. The court held that, on the facts stated, the right to recall a witness did not exist as a matter of law, and, in the exercise of its discretion, declined to permit that this should be done. The authorities cited, therefore, are decisive against appellants’ position.

It was further urged for error that his Honor held that there was no evidence tending to show undue influence. It is established with us that, in order to avoid a will on this ground, the influence complained of must be controlling and partake to some extent of the nature of fraud. Marshall v. Flinn, 49 N. C., 199 ; Wright v. Howe, 52 N. C., 412; Paine v. Roberts, 82 N. C., 451.

As held in Wright v. Howe, supra, “The influence which destroys the validity of ,a will is a fraudulent influence, controlling the mind of the testator so as to induce him to make a will which he would not otherwise have made.” It would serve no good purpose to go into any extended or detailed statement of the testimony. We have carefully read and considered it as given in the case on .appeal, and we fully concur with the trial Judge that there is no evidence tending to show undue influence, and are of opinion that the judgment establishing the validity of the will should be affirmed.

No Error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 S.E. 700, 146 N.C. 273, 1907 N.C. LEXIS 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-will-of-abee-nc-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack