Case Name: James M. Fay et ux. et al., Appellants, vs. James R. Feeley et als., Executors
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 1894-10-27
Citations: 18 R.I. 715
Docket Number: 
Parties: James M. Fay et ux. et al., Appellants, vs. James R. Feeley et als., Executors.
Judges: 
Reporter: Rhode Island Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 715–716

Head Matter:
PEOVIDENOE.
James M. Fay et ux. et al., Appellants, vs. James R. Feeley et als., Executors.
Where the validity of the residuary clause only of a will is contested on the ground that the residuary devisee and legatee had exercised undue influence over the testator in procuring the gift of the residuum of the estate to himself, the admissions of the residuary devisee and legatee tending to prove such undue influence are admissible as evidence against him.
Appellees’ petition for a new trial.
This was an appeal from a decree of the Municipal Court of the City of Providence admitting to probate the will of James D. Stuart, late of said Providence, deceased. At the trial on appeal in the Common Pleas Division of the Supreme Court the contestants withdrew all opposition to the probate of the will except as to the seventh clause by which the testator devised and bequeathed the residuum of his estate to his sister, Ellen Schmidt, to her and her heirs and assigns forever.
The jury returned a verdict sustaining the will, “save and excepting the seventh devise and bequest of said last will and testament to Mrs. Ellen Schmidt as residuary legatee; and as to said seventh and residuary devise and bequest, the jury find that the same is not the last will and testament of the said James D. Stuart.”
George A. Littlefield, for appellants.
William H. Greene & Patrick J. McCarthy, for appellees.
October 27, 1894.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The court is of the opinion that the admissions of the residuary legatee and devisee were competent evidence against her from which the jury might properly find that she exercised undue influence over the testator in procuring from him the devise and bequest to herself of the residuum of the estate. Saunder's Appeal, 54 Conn. 108; Nussear v. Arnold, 13 S. & R. 323. The admissions being competent, the verdict is not without evidence to support it, and no sufficient reason appears for the court to set it aside.
Petition for new trial denied and dismissed, with costs, and case remitted to the Common Pleas Division, with direction to enter a decree confirmatory of the verdict.