Title: Rowell v. McCollough

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

120 So. 2d 729 (1960)
Grace ROWELL et al.
v.
Mary Lizzie McCOLLOUGH et al.
4 Div. 14.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
May 19, 1960.
S. Fleetwood Carnley and Fleming & Stephens, Elba, for appellants.
B. B. Rowe, Enterprise, and Robt. B. Albritton, Andalusia, for appellee.
COLEMAN, Justice.
This is an appeal from a decree setting aside the verdict of the jury and granting a new trial in a will contest brought in equity under Title 61, § 54 et seq., Code 1940.
The will of M. F. McCollough, deceased, was admitted to probate in the Probate Court of Coffee County. Within six months thereafter appellants filed their bill in equity and demanded trial by jury. The verdict was in favor of contestants and against the will.
*730 Grounds of contest were mental incapacity, undue influence, and improper execution of the will. The affirmative charge with hypothesis eliminated the grounds of undue influence and improper execution, and the sole ground submitted to the jury was mental incapacity of decedent.
After verdict but before decree was rendered, the appellee, widow of decedent and proponent of the will, filed the motion for new trial. The decree of the court granting the motion recites in pertinent part:
The sole error assigned is the action of the court in granting a new trial.
We are cited to the following statement:
In Bates v. Chilton County, the words are:
By citing Bates v. Chilton County, the opinion in Mobile City Lines v. Alexander clearly shows that the use of the word "great" in the latter case was not intended, that use of the word "mere" was intended, and the correct expression is "mere preponderance of the evidence."
The rule of review has been stated as follows:
Where a will is not contested in the probate court,
In reviewing jury trials at law this court has said:
A detailed discussion of the evidence would serve no useful purpose. § 66, Title 13, Code 1940. Moreover, the case may be tried again. A conflict clearly appears in *731 the evidence submitted to the jury. Three lay witnesses testified that decedent was of unsound mind. Thirteen witnesses, including three practicing physicians, testified that decedent was of sound mind.
After careful consideration of all the evidence, we cannot say that it so plainly and palpably supported the verdict as to put the trial court in error for granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the great preponderance of the evidence. Under the rule of review noted above the decree appealed from is due to be and is affirmed.
Affirmed.
SIMPSON, STAKELY, and GOODWYN, JJ., concur.