Messner v. Elliott

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania January 3, 1898

Messner v. Elliott, 184 Pa. 41 (Pa. 1898)

39 A. 46; 1898 Pa. LEXIS 860

Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Pee, Sterrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Pee Curiam,

This issue was awarded to determine the validity of a paper purporting to be the last will of Elizabeth A. Heath which was contested on the grounds of testamentary incapacity and undue influence. The evidence, which is quite voluminous, involved questions of fact which were necessarily for the jury, and the case was accordingly submitted to them with instructions which, on the whole, appear to be adequate and free from any error that requires a reversal of the judgment.

*54There was no error in affirming plaintiffs’ third and fourth points, recited in the first and second specifications, nor in the qualified answers given to defendant’s sixth and seventh points, recited in the third and fourth specifications. In view of the facts which the testimony tended to prove, and the form in which these points were presented, the answers were not improper or erroneous.

Considered in their relation to other portions of the charge, the excerpts, recited in the fifth to seventh specifications, inclusive, are free from substantial error. The subjects of complaint in the remaining thirty specifications are the learned judge’s rulings on questions of evidence referred to therein respectively. A careful consideration of these has not convinced us that any of them should be sustained. In conducting the trial of cases such as this, passing upon the relevancy of evidence, the order of its admission, the mode of examining witnesses, etc., very much must be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. It is incumbent on the party complaining not only to point out technical error but to satisfy us that he or she was prejudiced thereby. Innoxious error is no ground of reversal. A careful consideration of this record has not satisfied us that there is any such error therein as would justify a reversal of the judgment. A detailed discussion of the very numerous specifications of error is unnecessary. It would consume much time to no useful purpose.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Amanda Messner and Samuel J. Heath, for himself and as trustee, Pearl Ramsey, Bessie Heath, Estella Heath, Samuel J. Heath and Julia Elliott, minors v. Mary S. Elliott
Cited By: 8 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Wills—Issue devisavit vel non—Testamentary capacity—Belevancy and order of testimony—Practice, G. P. In tlio trial of an issue devisavit vel non, the passing upon the relevancy of evidence, the order of its admission, the mode of examining witnesses, etc., must be left very much to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and it is incumbent on a party complaining, not only to point out technical error, but also to satisfy the appellate court that he or she was prejudiced thereby. Wills—Issue devisavit vel non—Evidence—Opinions of witnesses. On the trial of an issue devisavit vel non, it is not error for the court to charge that in determining testamentary capacity, the facts as to business transactions of the testator are of much more value than the opinions of witnesses. Wills—Undue influence—Evidence—Testamentary capacity. Where the making and executing of an alleged will are not denied, testamentary capacity and the absence of undue influence will be presumed, and such presumption will stand until overcome by the weight of testimony. Where there is no evidence that a beneficiary in a will solicited the bequest himself, or wrote the will or procured it to be written, or that his advice was sought or taken, the existence of intimate friendly relations between the testator and the beneficiaiy, such as living witli him, nursing him and managing his business, do not import undue influence, or shift the burden of proof from those who allege it.