Mechanics' Building & Loan Ass'n v. King

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a caveat to the decedent's will was not governed by Sinclair because the caveat sought to challenge the will, whereas the petition in Sinclair sought to affirm the will
• holding that, because the “in terrorem” clause in the decedent’s will became operative “[s]hould any beneficiary contest or initiate legal proceedings to contest the validity of this Will[,]” the mere initiation of a will contest was sufficient to trigger the “in terrorem” clause
• emphasizing that “Decedent’s in terrorem clause becomes operative ‘(s)hould any beneficiary contest or initiate legal proceedings to contest the validity of this Will’” and saying that the appellant’s “initiation of legal proceedings triggered the in terrorem clause”
• “[E]xecutors may not seek direction on imaginary difficulties or from excessive caution or where the rights of the parties have already accrued and no uncertainty remains.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).