Case ID: nc_239/html/0716-01.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 the Last Will and Testament of P. L. RADFORD.
    (Filed 24 March, 1954.)
    Appeal by caveators from Hall, S. J., at October Term 1953, of WayNE.
    Civil action, — an issue of devisavit vel non, raised by a caveat to the will of P. L. Eadford, deceased, filed by his nieces. These issues were submitted without objection, and answered as shown:
    “1. Was the paper writing propounded for probate, and dated January 24, 1951, executed by Plummer L. Eadford, in the manner and form required by law, for the execution of a Last Will and Testament? A. Yes (by consent).
    “2. At the time of the execution of said paper writing on the 24th day of January 1951, did Plummer L. Eadford have sufficient mental capacity to execute a valid Last Will and Testament? A. Yes.
    “3. Is the paper writing propounded for probate, and each and every part thereof, the Last Will and Testament of Plummer L. Eadford? A. Yes (by the court).”
    The first issue was answered “Yes” by consent. It was agreed also that the third issue might be answered by the court in accordance with the jury’s answer to the second issue. And the jury having answered the second issue “Yes,” the court answered the third issue “Yes,” and signed judgment admitting tbe last will and testament of Plummer L. Radford to probate, and probating it in solemn form.
    Caveators excepted thereto, and appeal to Supreme Court and assign error.
    
      B. F. Aycock and Dees & Dees for propo.unders, appellees.
    
    
      J. Faison Thomson & Sons and W. Dortch Langston for caveators, appellants.
    
   Per Curiam.

Careful consideration of tbe record and all assignments of error shown in tbe case on appeal, reveals that tbe trial of this case in Superior Court was conducted in accordance with well established and applicable principles of law and rules of evidence in such cases. Prejudicial error is not made to appear.

Therefore, express consideration of tbe many assignments of error presented would serve only to restate familiar principles and rules to no useful purpose. Hence, in tbe judgment from which appeal is taken, there is

No error.