Case ID: nc_259/html/0504-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IN RE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF DORA C. JONES, Deceased.
    (Filed 22 May 1963.)
    Appeal by caveators from Paul, J., November 19, 1962, Term of LENOIR.
    Dora C. Jones, a resident of Lenoir County, North Carolina, died March 3, 1961. A paper writing dated June 18, 1960, purporting to be her last will and testament, was probated in common form on March 6,1961. A caveat was filed on March 20,1961, and the cause was transferred to' the superior court for trial.
    Upon trial, the jury answered the issues raised by the caveat as follows:
    “1. Was the paper-writing dated June 18, 1960, and now offered for probate, executed by the said Dora C. Jones with the formalities required by law? ANSWER: Yes.
    
      “2. Did the said Dora C. Jones, on June 18, 1960, at the time of the execution of said paper-writing, lack, that is, was she without, sufficient mental capacity to execute a Will? ANSWER: No.
    “3. Was the execution of the paper-writing dated June 18, 1960, procured through the undue influence of Clifton C. Jones and Cecil Jones, or either of them? ANSWER: No.
    “4. Is the paper-writing dated June 18, 1960, and -now offered for probate, and each and every part thereof, the Last Will and Testament of Dora C. Jones? ANSWER Yes.”
    Thereupon, the 'court adjudged “that the paper-writing propounded as the Last Will and Testament of Dora C. Jones, deceased, dated June 18, 1960, and each and every part of the said document, constitutes the Last Will and Testament of Dora C. Jones, deceased.”
    Caveators excepted and appealed.
    
      Fred W. Harrison for caveator appellants.
    
    
      C. E. Gerrans and Wallace & Wallace for propounder appellees.
    
   Per Curiam.

Evidence was offered by the propounders 'and by the caveators. The issues were submitted under a full, clear and correct charge; and the verdict is in all respects supported by plenary evidence. Particular discussion of the questions presented by caveators’ (four) assignments of error is deemed unnecessary. Suffice to say, caveators’ assignments do not show prejudicial error and are overruled.

No error.