Title: Lovell v. Lovell

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

121 So. 2d 901 (1960)
Sadie S. LOVELL et al.
v.
Linda Sue LOVELL.
7 Div. 496.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 30, 1960.
Johnson & Randall, Oneonta, for appellants.
Starnes & Holladay, Pell City, for appellee.
MERRILL, Justice.
Appellee, Linda Sue Lovell, filed her petition to probate the alleged last will of *902 her deceased husband, Willard Paul Lovell. Appellants, the mother and brother of the testator, filed a contest, asked that the cause be transferred to the circuit court and demanded a trial by jury. Willard Paul Lovell left no lineal descendants and his only heirs were his wife, his mother and his brother.
The grounds of the contest were that the alleged will is not the last will and testament of the decedent, that it was not duly and legally executed by him, that it was revoked by him, that it was destroyed by him with intent to revoke it, and that it was the result of undue influence. This last ground is not an issue on this appeal.
The jury found the issues in favor of the appellee and for the will. Judgment was entered ordering the will admitted to probate and this appeal followed.
Willard Paul Lovell operated a drug store in Springville. He was not in good health and on October 14, 1958, he told his wife he was going to make a new will because all of the witnesses to his old one were dead. On October 16th, he called two friends of many years standing, Ira Walker and Fred Whitley, into his drug store, told them that he wanted them to witness his will, read it to them, asked each of them to read it, signed it in their presence and they witnessed his signature. They did not see or know what he did with the executed will.
One of the contestants, H. L. Lovell, testified that he was present in the drug store sometime later and his brother showed him the executed will and placed it in his safe in the rear of the store.
The testator died on December 4, 1958, and a search was instituted for his will. It was not in the safe, nor in a box of papers to which only he and his wife had the keys and which was kept in the bank at Springville, nor in their safety deposit box in a bank in Birmingham. So far as is shown, from the record, the will was never found.
About ten days after her husband's death, appellee found the following paper, in the chest of drawers in her late husband's bedroom, which showed on its face that it was a carbon copy:
Appellee contended that this was a true copy of the will except that it should be dated October 16, 1958, signed by Willard Paul Lovell and witnessed by Ira Walker and Fred Whitley.
Appellants' assignments of error 1, 2, 3, 4 and 16 charge that the court erred in overruling various objections to the introduction of this instrument.
It is undisputed that the testator had the capacity to make the will when he did, the witnesses to it testified to the substance of the will, and it was signed and witnessed as required by Tit. 61, § 24, Code 1940.
*903 A lost will may be established by the testimony of a single witness who read it, or heard it read and remembered its contents, and proof of the substance of a lost instrument as a will is sufficient, and the exact words need not be shown. Martin v. Wagner, 247 Ala. 591, 25 So. 2d 409; Allen v. Scruggs, 190 Ala. 654, 67 So. 301; Skeggs v. Horton, 82 Ala. 352, 2 So. 110; Jaques v. Horton, 76 Ala. 238.
Here, both witnesses to the will met every requirement of the above stated rule, and the trial court did not err in overruling objections to the admission of the carbon copy into evidence.
Assignment of error 5 charges that the court erred in its oral charge to the jury, when it said:
Appellants excepted to this portion of the oral charge and argue that this part of the instruction improperly placed a burden on appellants that should have been carried by appellee. With this, we must agree.
In Jaques v. Horton, 76 Ala. 238, the court, speaking through Clopton, J., said:
It is clear that the law places the burden on the proponent (here appellee) while the charge placed the burden on the contestants. The failure of the court to rectify this incorrect statement of the law when called to its attention constituted reversible error.
In Jordan v. Ringstaff, 212 Ala. 414, 102 So. 895, the following was stated and later approved in Martin v. Wagner, 247 Ala. 591, 25 So.2d 409:
Here, of course, the issue of revocation did arise from the presumption, and the burden was improperly placed in the court's oral charge. It follows that the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
LAWSON, STAKELY and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.