Case Name: Geddes's Estate
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1925-04-13
Citations: 283 Pa. 139
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 35
Parties: Geddes’s Estate.
Judges: Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler and Schaefer, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 283
Pages: 139–140

Head Matter:
Geddes’s Estate.
Wills — Probate — Refusal of issue devisavit vel non — Testamentary capacity — Undue influence — Appeals.
1. Where, on an appeal from a refusal of an issue devisavit vel non, the only grounds for the contest alleged were lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence, and the record is devoid of evidence sufficient to sustain these contentions, and the sole assignment of error is to the decree, the appellate court will affirm without further comment.
Argued March 17, 1925.
Appeal, No. 35, March T., 1925, by Clark J. Duncan et al., guardians of Wm. T. Geddes, Jr., son of decedent, from decree of O. C. Somerset Go., to Estate No. 16, of 1924, refusing issue devisavit vel non, in estate of William T. Geddes, deceased.
Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler and Schaefer, JJ.
Affirmed.
Appeal from register of wills. Before Berkey, P. J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Issue devisavit vel non refused. Clark J. Duncan et al., guardians of Wm. T. Geddes, Jr., son of decedent, appealed.
Error assigned was decree, quoting record.
Clarence L. Shaver, with him Harry E. McWhinney and William Williams, for appellant.
J ohn A. Hartman, Charles F. Uhl and Chas. H. Ealy, for appellees, were not heard.
April 13, 1925:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
This appeal is from the refusal of the orphans' court to award an issue devisavit vel non. Appellants contend that, at the date of the execution of the paper offered as the will of William T. Geddes, the latter was without testamentary capacity, and subject to the undue influence of Zelda F. Howe, afterwards Zelda F. Geddes, now the widow of decedent, who, by such influence so exerted, procured the alleged will in her favor. The record is devoid of evidence sufficient to sustain these contentions; and, since the sole assignment of error complains only of the decree, this is all that need be said in disposing of the present appeal.
The decree is affirmed at cost of appellants.