Case Name: Anna E. GOTTHARDT et al., Appellants, v. George A. ADLUNG, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1957-06-13
Citations: 246 F.2d 674
Docket Number: No. 13554
Parties: Anna E. GOTTHARDT et al., Appellants, v. George A. ADLUNG, Appellee.
Judges: Before Prettyman, Washington an Burger, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 246
Pages: 674–674

Head Matter:
Anna E. GOTTHARDT et al., Appellants, v. George A. ADLUNG, Appellee.
No. 13554.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued May 13, 1957.
Decided June 13, 1957.
Mr. O. R. McGuire, Washington, D. C. , with whom Mr. Vivian 0. Hill and Miss Ivy Lee Buchanan, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellants. Mr. Arthur J. Hilland, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Mr. Thomas N. Kindness, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before Prettyman, Washington an Burger, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellee is the executor of the will Mamie Ross who died March 10, 195 The will was executed March 5, 195. Appellants, beneficiaries under a pri will, filed a caveat contesting the due e ecution of the will and the testatri testamentary capacity, and asserting t" will was procured through the fraud, ceit, undue influence, duress and coercí of appellee, and that it was not the 1 will of the testatrix. The trial co directed a verdict for appellee at close of appellants' evidence on the iss relating to due execution and fraud deceit. Thereafter, the jury retur verdicts for the appellee-executor find that the testatrix had testament capacity to execute the will, that appe had not obtained the will by undue fluence, duress or coercion, and that March 5 instrument was the last wil the testatrix. The District Court tered judgment admitting the wil probate and granting letters t' mentary to appellee.
On appeal appellants urge as gro for reversal that the trial judge mad roneous rulings in the admission exclusion of evidence, that he impro instructed the jury concerning the 1 undue influence and that the app counsel engaged in asserted preju conduct at the trial.
We have reviewed appellants' c tions and conclude no error oc which would warrant our disturbi judgment appealed from. The jud of the District Court is therefore
Affirmed.