U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1950

Sullivan v. Bond. Bond v. Sullivan

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided February 13, 1950 · Clark, Per Curiam, Prettyman, Washington

180 F.2d 47; 86 U.S. App. D.C. 146; 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2363 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. H. Mason Welch, Washington, D. C., for appellant and cross-appellee Edith B. Sullivan, Messrs. John Ryan Daily and J. Harry Welch, Washington, D. C., also entered appearances for appellant and cross-appellee Edith B. Sullivan., Mr. William T. Hannan, Washington, D. C., for appellee and cross-appellant Mary A. Bond.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Estate Of Florence Voelzel Kerr, A/K/A Florence V. Kerr, Deceased. Ralph L. Atchison, Administrator, C.T.A. (D.C. Cir. 1970)
Atchison v. Hall (D.C. Cir. 1970)
Dorn v. Glen Echo Park Co., Inc. (D.C. Cir. 1950)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The controversy in this case arose out of caveator-appellant’s claim of fraud and undue influence exercised by appellee in the execution of two codicils to testatrix’s will. On issues framed the jury found that undue influence was exercised only in the execution of the first codicil. The second codicil, however, republished the first codicil as well as the will. This appeal was predicated on alleged errors committed by the court below and on a claimed inconsistency in the jury’s verdict.

It is a cardinal .rule in construing wills that the testator’s intent, shall govern. The record in the instant case discloses that the second codicil contained a clear statement of testatrix’s .intent. Since .her wishes were apparent in the circumstances and since the jury found no. undue influence in the second codicil which validated both the first codicil and the will, we have no disposition or right to disturb the verdict. We find no error in the record, and the judgment of the District Court is therefore affirmed..

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.