Court Opinion

ID: 9827044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:05:30.627468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:21.740580
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellees request that we make additional findings of fact showing upon what we based our conclusion that the heirship of some of the appellants was sufficiently shown by the record, though the evidence was meager thereon.
One of the appellants, Sam Jackson, testified that he was a nephew of testator, — “My mother was his sister * * full sister.” Appellee objected to the testimony of Sam Jackson’s wife with reference to transactions with deceased, as being violative of Art. 3716, and because Sam Jackson was a party plaintiff. Another witness testified that testator had some nieces and nephews, his sister’s children, living near him. Mrs. Sam Jackson testified that Sam Jackson was the nephew of testator. His application for old age pension stated that his spouse was not living, and that he had no living children. Dr. T. Richard Sealy testified : “When he said he wanted to make a will, I asked him if he had any relatives that *333he felt like would object, because I did not want to get into anything like that; that is the reason I did not want anything to do with it. He said he had some nephews and nieces, but that he had been good to them and felt like he had done what was right by them.” The issue of heirship was raised only by exception to the pleadings; and since we are reversing the case upon the ground that testimony bearing upon the mental capacity of testator was improperly excluded, we think the testimony as to the relationship, or heirship, is sufficient to require the remanding of the cause instead of rendering it, in order that the ends of justice would be better served.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.