Linnard v. Shields

Supreme Court of Alabama

Linnard v. Shields

368 So. 2d 14, 1979 Ala. LEXIS 2769

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMarch 2, 1979

Docket77-608

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 368 So. 2d 14 (Linnard v. Shields) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Linnard v. Shields, 368 So. 2d 14, 1979 Ala. LEXIS 2769 (Ala. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

MADDOX, Justice.

This case involves a contested will. The issue is whether the testatrix exhibited the testamentary capacity necessary to make a will.

Summarized, the facts are:

On February 26, 1975, the mayor of Un-iontown, Andrew Hayden, prepared a will for the testatrix. In the will the testatrix left $1.00 to her sister, Mary Linnard (Lindsley), the contestant. The remainder of her estate was left to Bernard Hugene [15]*15Shields. Annie Bell Allen and Clarence Moore attested to the signing of the will and subscribed their names to the instrument. The testatrix died the following day.

The case was tried before a jury, which found that the instrument was valid and was the will of the testatrix. The contestant filed a motion for a new trial, and claimed that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the evidence. The trial court denied the motion. Contestant appealed.

The testimony given at trial was in conflict as to the mental and physical condition of the testatrix during the time period surrounding the making of her will. There is a well-established doctrine in this state which has recently been reiterated by this Court in Fletcher v. DeLoach, 360 So.2d 316 (1978); which states:

“In cases of this nature, the verdict of the jury cannot be overturned unless shown to be clearly wrong and unjust. Wilson v. Payton, 251 Ala. 411, 414, 37 So.2d 499, 501 (1948); Watkins v. Yeatman, 189 Ala. 370, 66 So. 707 (1914). The refusal of the trial judge to grant the appellant-proponent’s motion for new trial strengthens this presumption in favor of the verdict. Johnson v. Howard, 279 Ala. 16, 22, 181 So.2d 85, 91 (1965).”

After a careful review of the record in this case, we cannot say that the verdict of the jury was clearly wrong and unjust. The judgment entered upon the jury verdict is due to be and is hereby affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C. J., and JONES, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

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