Doran v. Mullen
Citations
- 78 Ill. 342
Syllabus
<p>1. Will—when must he admitted to prohate. The statute has prescribed what is necessary to admit a will to probate, and courts have no power to superadd other conditions or dispense with any portion of those enumerated in the statute; nor has the court the slightest discretion. When a case is made, the court must admit the will to probate, and if the necessary proof is not produced, the court must reject the will.</p> <p>2. Same—what is sufficient proof to admit to prohate. Where one of the witnesses testified that he saw the testator sign the will, and that he signed it at the request of the testator; and the other, that the testator’s name was signed to it at the time he witnessed it, and both witnesses testified that they signed it and witnessed it in the presence of the testator and of each other, and that the testator was of sound mind and memory when they witnessed the instrument, and that he was at that time from forty-five to fifty years of age, the requirements of the statute were fully complied with, and the court had no power to reject the will.</p> <p>3. The fact that a will bears date on the 20th day of the month, and the petition of the proponent of the will for letters of administration states that the testator died on the 17th of the same month, does not tend to prove that the will is a forgery. The more reasonable supposition is, that the proponent was mistaken as to the date of the death, or that a mistake was made in the date of the will.</p> <p>4. Examination of witnesses—when leading questions may he ashed. It is discretionary with the court to permit leading questions to be asked, and when a witness is unwilling, or very ignorant, a fair administration of justice requires that such a course should be allowed.</p> <p>5. Signature—;presumed to he affiwced under standingly. Where an instrument is found with a signature affixed to it, the presumption is, that the party signing it knew its contents, and there is no distinction in this respect betw
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding digital enhancement of trial photographs is not newly discovered evidence
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Walker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.