Sullivan v. Bond. Bond v. Sullivan

D.C. Circuit

Sullivan v. Bond. Bond v. Sullivan

180 F.2d 47, 86 U.S. App. D.C. 146, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2363

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 13, 1950

Docket9894_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 180 F.2d 47 (Sullivan v. Bond. Bond v. Sullivan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sullivan v. Bond. Bond v. Sullivan, 180 F.2d 47, 86 U.S. App. D.C. 146, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2363 (D.C. Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The controversy in this case arose out of caveator-appellant’s claim of fraud and undue influence exercised by appellee in the execution of two codicils to testatrix’s will. On issues framed the jury found that undue influence was exercised only in the execution of the first codicil. The second codicil, however, republished the first codicil as well as the will. This appeal was predicated on alleged errors committed by the court below and on a claimed inconsistency in the jury’s verdict.

It is a cardinal .rule in construing wills that the testator’s intent, shall govern. The record in the instant case discloses that the second codicil contained a clear statement of testatrix’s .intent. Since .her wishes were apparent in the circumstances and since the jury found no. undue influence in the second codicil which validated both the first codicil and the will, we have no disposition or right to disturb the verdict. We find no error in the record, and the judgment of the District Court is therefore affirmed..

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

PER CURIAM.

The controversy in this case arose out of caveator-appellant’s claim of fraud and undue influence exercised by appellee in the execution of two codicils to testatrix’s will. On issues framed the jury found that undue influence was exercised only in the execution of the first codicil. The second codicil, however, republished the first codicil as well as the will. This appeal was predicated on alleged errors committed by the court below and on a claimed inconsistency in the jury’s verdict.

It is a cardinal .rule in construing wills that the testator’s intent, shall govern. The record in the instant case discloses that the second codicil contained a clear statement of testatrix’s .intent. Since .her wishes were apparent in the circumstances and since the jury found no. undue influence in the second codicil which validated both the first codicil and the will, we have no disposition or right to disturb the verdict. We find no error in the record, and the judgment of the District Court is therefore affirmed..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 F.2d 47, 86 U.S. App. D.C. 146, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-bond-bond-v-sullivan-cadc-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack