Court Opinion

ID: 6547996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:21:15.612379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:56:01.486834
License: Public Domain

McCulloch, C. J., (dissenting). This case seems to have been submitted to the jury upon exceptionally clear instructions, save number three, and they were correct. The record is entirely free from error in other respects, and the verdict is well supported by the testimony. Instruction number three contains some language which submits an incorrect test of testamentary capacity, but, considering this instruction as a whole and in connection with the other instructions given at the request of each party, I do not see how the jury could have been misled by it. The instruction is not one that is inherently wrong, though it is to some extent ambiguous and'calculated to mislead. It should, therefore, have been met by a specific objection to the particular language which was objectionable. It is manifest from all the instructions that the court intended to make capacity, and not actual knowledge, the test, and the jury must have so understood. If a specific objection had been made to the objectionable language in the instruction, so as to call attention directly to it, the court would no doubt- have modified it so as to harmonize it with the other instructions. I do not think the verdict should be disturbed. Mr. Justice Hart agrees with me.