Opinion ID: 1994652
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rulings Denying Requests for Instructions

Text: The proponents' contentions that the trial justice erred in refusing to grant their request for instructions Nos. 11 and 4 have been answered by our disposition under Point I of this opinion. The proponents have expressly waived their objection to the failure of the trial justice to grant their request for instruction No. 5. The proponents next contend that the trial justice erred in refusing to grant their request for instruction No. 8 which reads as follows: If a person signs an instrument knowing that it is a will, the instrument cannot be upset as his will because it contains provisions different from what he thought it contained unless fraud or undue influence was perpetrated upon the testator. The proponents declare their request is based on certain statements appearing in 57 Am. Jur., Wills, § 375. A careful reading of this section, however, indicates that it pertains to the validity of a will the execution of which has been induced by a mistake of law or fact. Such an issue, however, was not before the superior court in the instant case. We find therefore proponents' requested charge to be inapposite and properly refused by the trial justice. The proponents have briefed and argued a further contention, that the trial justice also erred in not granting their request for certain other instructions identified in the record as request for instruction No. 10. Since their contention was based upon the correctness of their request to charge which we have just discussed, our upholding of the trial justice's refusal to grant request No. 8 is dispositive of this particular issue and makes any discussion of proponents' additional request pointless.