Swartz v. Miller

201 P. 1116, 70 Colo. 384, 1921 Colo. LEXIS 354
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedNovember 7, 1921
DocketNo. 10,066
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 201 P. 1116 (Swartz v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Swartz v. Miller, 201 P. 1116, 70 Colo. 384, 1921 Colo. LEXIS 354 (Colo. 1921).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Denison

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is a contest by Eva Miller of the will of her mother, Katharina Haldi, who left a legacy of $500 to Mrs. Swartz, plaintiff in error, the residue to said Eva Miller who is sole heir; it is before us on motion for supersedeas.

The attack upon the will was made upon the grounds of undue influence and mental incapacity. The court, we think rightly, withdrew from the jury the question of undue influence and submitted only that of mental incapacity. The verdict for the contestant must therefore be regarded as based wholly on the latter point.

This case differs from the ordinary contest of a v/ill on the ground of insufficient mental capacity in that usually the claim is made that capacity has failed at or before the execution of the instrument attacked, while here we have a claim that there never was sufficient capacity for testamentary purposes. At the date of the will Mrs. Haldi’s mind was as good as it ever was.

The principal ground urged for reversal is that the verdict is against the evidence and this ground we think is well taken. We think that the verdict is contrary to the direct, positive and undisputed evidence of the testatrix’s mental capacity as shown by what she actually did during her many years’ residence in Boulder county, and that she was so shown to be of sound and disposing mind; our conclusion, therefore, is that the verdict is not sustained by [386]*386the evidence. This makes it unnecessary to consider other questions.

Both sides ask us to decide the case finally and not grant a new trial. We therefore grant the supersedeas and direct the reversal of the case and judgment for the contestee.

Mr. Justice Teller, sitting for' Mr. Chief Justice Scott and Mr. Justice Whitford concur.

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

Related

Wehrkamp v. Burnett
256 P. 630 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
201 P. 1116, 70 Colo. 384, 1921 Colo. LEXIS 354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swartz-v-miller-colo-1921.