Seigler v. Seigler

Texas Supreme Court

Seigler v. Seigler

391 S.W.2d 403, 8 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 406, 1965 Tex. LEXIS 227

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedMay 12, 1965

DocketA-10702

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 391 S.W.2d 403 (Seigler v. Seigler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Seigler v. Seigler, 391 S.W.2d 403, 8 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 406, 1965 Tex. LEXIS 227 (Tex. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a will contest involving the issues of testamentary capacity and undue influence. We do not agree with the statement of the Court of Civil Appeals that “the burden of proof on the whole case under the pleadings” rested upon the contestants. (386 S.W.2d 849). The burden of proof was upon the proponent (petitioner) to prove that the testator had testamentary capacity. The contestants could not properly secure the fight to open and close the argument under Rules 266 and 269, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure by voluntarily assuming the burden of proof on this issue. In order to gain such right, it would be necessary that testamentary capacity be unequivocally admitted or established as a matter of law and the issue thus removed from the case. Considering the entire record in this case, however, we are of the opinion that it is not shown that the trial court’s action in allowing the contestants .(respondents) to open and conclude the arguments to the jury amounted to such a denial of the rights of the petitioner as was reasonably calculated to cause and probably did cause the rendition of an improper judgment in the case. Rule 503, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error. Denbow v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 143 Tex. 455, 186 S.W.2d 236.

SMITH, J., not participating.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a will contest involving the issues of testamentary capacity and undue influence. We do not agree with the statement of the Court of Civil Appeals that “the burden of proof on the whole case under the pleadings” rested upon the contestants. (386 S.W.2d 849). The burden of proof was upon the proponent (petitioner) to prove that the testator had testamentary capacity. The contestants could not properly secure the fight to open and close the argument under Rules 266 and 269, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure by voluntarily assuming the burden of proof on this issue. In order to gain such right, it would be necessary that testamentary capacity be unequivocally admitted or established as a matter of law and the issue thus removed from the case. Considering the entire record in this case, however, we are of the opinion that it is not shown that the trial court’s action in allowing the contestants .(respondents) to open and conclude the arguments to the jury amounted to such a denial of the rights of the petitioner as was reasonably calculated to cause and probably did cause the rendition of an improper judgment in the case. Rule 503, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error. Denbow v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 143 Tex. 455, 186 S.W.2d 236.

SMITH, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

391 S.W.2d 403, 8 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 406, 1965 Tex. LEXIS 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seigler-v-seigler-tex-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack