Triestman v. Kilgore

Texas Supreme Court

Triestman v. Kilgore

838 S.W.2d 547, 36 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 85, 1992 Tex. LEXIS 113, 1992 WL 280559

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 14, 1992

DocketD-2609

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 838 S.W.2d 547 (Triestman v. Kilgore) 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

Triestman v. Kilgore, 838 S.W.2d 547, 36 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 85, 1992 Tex. LEXIS 113, 1992 WL 280559 (Tex. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case involves the probate of the will of William Merritt Hutchins, deceased. The probate court admitted the will to probate. Nancy Hutchins Kilgore, a named legatee under the will, appealed the probate order by writ of error. The court of appeals reversed the probate order, holding that there was no evidence presented by the will proponents that the attesting witnesses were credible on that date. 829 S.W.2d 295, 299-300.

The Probate Code requires every last will and testament, if not wholly in the handwriting of the testator, to be attested by two or more “credible witnesses.” Tex. Prob.Code Ann. § 59(a) (Vernon Supp. 1992). It is long settled that “credible witness” is synonymous with “competent witness.” Lehmann v. Krahl, 155 Tex. 270, 285 S.W.2d 179, 180 (1955); Gamble v. Butchee, 87 Tex. 643, 30 S.W. 861 (1895); Kennedy v. Upshaw, 66 Tex. 442, 1 S.W. 308 (1886); Brown v. Pridgen, 56 Tex. 124 (1882); Nixon v. Armstrong, 38 Tex. 296 (1873). A competent witness to a will is one who receives no pecuniary benefit under its terms. Scandurro v. Beto, 234 S.W.2d 695, 698 (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco 1950, no writ). See also Lehmann, 285 S.W.2d at 180 (husband credible witness to will under which wife was legatee); Gamble, 30 S.W. at 862 (wife credible witness to will under which husband was legatee). Conversely, a person interested as taking under a will is incompetent to testify to establish it. See Tex.Prob.Code Ann. § 61; Fowler v. Stagner, 55 Tex. 393, 397 (1881); Nixon, 38 Tex. at 298.

The court of appeals held that no evidence was presented that the subscribing witnesses were credible or competent. The purported will was admitted into evidence. The will provides no pecuniary benefit to either witness. The will itself constitutes some evidence that the witnesses were credible to attest the will at the time the will was executed.

In denying petitioners’ application for writ of error, we disapprove of the court of appeals’ analysis regarding the credibility *548 or competence of the attesting witnesses. The application for writ of error is denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case involves the probate of the will of William Merritt Hutchins, deceased. The probate court admitted the will to probate. Nancy Hutchins Kilgore, a named legatee under the will, appealed the probate order by writ of error. The court of appeals reversed the probate order, holding that there was no evidence presented by the will proponents that the attesting witnesses were credible on that date. 829 S.W.2d 295, 299-300.

The Probate Code requires every last will and testament, if not wholly in the handwriting of the testator, to be attested by two or more “credible witnesses.” Tex. Prob.Code Ann. § 59(a) (Vernon Supp. 1992). It is long settled that “credible witness” is synonymous with “competent witness.” Lehmann v. Krahl, 155 Tex. 270, 285 S.W.2d 179, 180 (1955); Gamble v. Butchee, 87 Tex. 643, 30 S.W. 861 (1895); Kennedy v. Upshaw, 66 Tex. 442, 1 S.W. 308 (1886); Brown v. Pridgen, 56 Tex. 124 (1882); Nixon v. Armstrong, 38 Tex. 296 (1873). A competent witness to a will is one who receives no pecuniary benefit under its terms. Scandurro v. Beto, 234 S.W.2d 695, 698 (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco 1950, no writ). See also Lehmann, 285 S.W.2d at 180 (husband credible witness to will under which wife was legatee); Gamble, 30 S.W. at 862 (wife credible witness to will under which husband was legatee). Conversely, a person interested as taking under a will is incompetent to testify to establish it. See Tex.Prob.Code Ann. § 61; Fowler v. Stagner, 55 Tex. 393, 397 (1881); Nixon, 38 Tex. at 298.

The court of appeals held that no evidence was presented that the subscribing witnesses were credible or competent. The purported will was admitted into evidence. The will provides no pecuniary benefit to either witness. The will itself constitutes some evidence that the witnesses were credible to attest the will at the time the will was executed.

In denying petitioners’ application for writ of error, we disapprove of the court of appeals’ analysis regarding the credibility *548 or competence of the attesting witnesses. The application for writ of error is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

838 S.W.2d 547, 36 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 85, 1992 Tex. LEXIS 113, 1992 WL 280559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/triestman-v-kilgore-tex-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack