Martin v. Staples

164 F.2d 106, 82 U.S. App. D.C. 370
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided November 10, 1947·No. No. 9476·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was taken from a jury’s verdict before judgment had been entered. It is therefore premature and must be dismissed. St. Louis Amusement Co. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 8 Cir., 156 F.2d 400; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 58, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. However, we have examined the record and find that the judgment would be affirmed if it were before us. Appellant is the beneficiary of a will which has been denied probate because the jury found that the will had been procured by undue influence, duress, or coercion. Appellant, conceding .that thé definitions of undue influence, duress and coercion in the instructions of the trial judge to the jury were correct, urges that there was no evidence to support the jury’s verdict. ■ We find that the evidence was ample.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Martin v. Staples, 164 F.2d 106, 82 U.S. App. D.C. 370 (D.C. Cir. 1947).

164 F.2d 106 (Martin v. Staples) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Michelle Donahue v. DHS
D.C. Circuit, 2023
State v. Mason
205 S.E.2d 819 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1974)
Roe Village, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners
403 P.2d 970 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1965)