Tetlow's Estate

Citations

• 269 Pa. 486
• 112 A. 758
• 1921 Pa. LEXIS 592

Syllabus

<p>Wills — Prolate—Contested cases — Testamentary capacity — Undue influence — Province of court and jury — General rules — Practice, C. P. — Appeal—Review.</p> <p>1. The law takes practical means to prevent twelve men in a jury box from improperly setting aside the duly expressed wishes pf a testator, by vesting in the judge the power to decide whether o-r not he shall submit oral evidence to the jury, even though it be conflicting.</p> <p>2. If, after weighing the whole body of the evidence, the trial judge feels sure that his professional and official conscience would not permit him to sustain a verdict against the validity of the will, either because the contestants’ proofs lack probative force or are legally inadequate, or because those that -are reasonably worthy of credence raise no material conflict on any governing point, or because the prima facie case which they present has been so overcome by opposing proof as to leave no substantial dispute, it is his bounden duty to instruct the jury peremptorily against the contestants.</p> <p>3. When the contestants’ evidence, “looked at separately,” would support a verdict against the will, and the proponent’s evidence, viewed in the same way, would command a contrary verdict, the issues involved should be submitted to the jury, unless the court is convinced that the proofs on one side are so strong that they overcome the opposing prima facie case and leave no substantial dispute.</p> <p>4. If, on a thorough consideration of the testimony, there be found a tangible basis of doubt as to whether or not contestants have in fact sustained the material parts of the case alleged by them, and the court, for that reason, is not certain it would disturb a finding against the will, the issues involved should be submitted to the jury for determination; and unless — on a duly raised reexamination, after verdict, and applying the tests applicable to this class of cases — the evidence proves insufficient to support the finding of