Court Opinion

ID: 9735284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:08:05.26844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:56.774253
License: Public Domain

FILES, J.
I dissent. As I read the ambiguous colloquy which followed appellant’s so-called offer of proof, the court indicated that additional evidence would be received as to the testatrix’ state of mind. The case was then recessed until afternoon so appellant could make further preparation. Appellant never pursued the matter. We may infer he found that his witnesses could contribute nothing further that would be helpful.
Appellant’s sole contention in this court is that the word “executor” should be construed to mean “beneficiary” as a matter of law. As to this, we are all agreed he is wrong. He does not complain of any exclusion of evidence or assert that he has additional testimony which could be produced on a retrial. The supposed will of the decedent’s first husband, offered without any foundation, was properly excluded as an irrelevant and immaterial piece of paper.
The trial court considered all of the evidence properly offered by appellant and decided a fact issue against him. He is not entitled to another trial.
A petition for a rehearing was denied November 27, 1963. Files, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted. Respondents’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied December 18, 1963.