Kelly v. Settegast

Citations

• 68 Tex. 13
• 2 S.W. 870
• 1887 Tex. LEXIS 637

Syllabus

<p>1. Jurisdiction—Practice.—Trials in the district court on appeals from a county court are had de novo, and in an appeal from a judgment admitting a will to probate, aji evidence will be heard in the district court which could have been admissible in the county court.</p> <p>2. Wills—Presumption.—The fact that a person has executed a testamentary paper in the mode prescribed by law, is ordinarily deemed sufficient evidence that the instrument speaks the language which the testator desired to use, and thereby reflects his wishes in regard to all matters of which it speaks..</p> <p>3. Wills.—When the evidence shows that a testator who was of sound mind, able to read and write, and in no way unable to acquire knowledge of the contents of a paper by exercising his natural faculties, signs a testamentary paper, and procures it to be witnessed in the mode prescribed by law, the will should be admitted to probate without further proof that the testator knew its contents, if free from suspicion regarding facts connected with its execution.</p> <p>4. Same.—But when a paper waiting, purporting to be a will, was copied from another writing made by one who by its terms was to receive a large portion of the estate (all the natural heirs being disinherited), and the testator was aged, infirm, and unable to read, the mere formal proof of the execution of the paper will not entitle it to probate. In such a case it should be shown that the testator correctly understood the contents of the paper signed by him. On this point Hállison v. Rowan, 3 Washburn, 885; Beall v. Mann, 5 Georgia, 469, and other authorities cited in the opinion, approved.</p> <p>5. Pact Case.—See the case for facts held insufficient to authorize the probate of a will.</p>