Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statutetrialverdictwilljury instructions
statuteappealtrialprobatewill

Related Cases

Mackie v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co., 215 Mich.App. 20, 544 N.W.2d 709
View Case »
Jack v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. of Los Angeles, 899 P.2d 891
View Case »
People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 900 N.E.2d 946, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 09254
View Case »
Connolly v. Bell, 286 A.D. 220, 141 N.Y.S.2d 753
View Case »
Reed v. Allen, 286 U.S. 191, 52 S.Ct. 532, 76 L.Ed. 1054, 81 A.L.R. 703
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Wheat v. Wheat, 156 Conn. 575, 244 A.2d 359

Facts

The case involves the will of Roberta Stockton Cox Wheat, dated November 1, 1958, which was contested after her death. The proponent, her son Clayton E. Wheat, claimed the will was duly executed, while the contestant argued it was the product of undue influence. The trial court instructed the jury that if they found the will was not duly executed, they need not consider other issues, resulting in a verdict against the will's validity based solely on the execution issue.

The first of the above-entitled cases is an appeal by the proponent from the decree of the Probate Court for the district of Darien denying admission to probate of a purported will of Roberta Stockton Cox Wheat dated November 1, 1958.

Issue

Did the trial court err in its charge regarding the requirements for the due execution of the will?

Did the trial court err in its charge regarding the requirements for the due execution of the will?

Rule

The Connecticut General Statutes require that a will must be in writing, subscribed by the testator, and attested by three witnesses, each subscribing in the testator's presence.

The Connecticut requirements for a valid will are found in ss 45-160 and 45-161 of the General Statutes.

Analysis

The Supreme Court found that the trial court's charge incorrectly imposed an additional requirement that the attesting witnesses must have seen the testatrix's signature on the will at the time of attestation. This was not a requirement under the statute, which only required that the witnesses attest the will in the presence of the testator, not necessarily seeing the signature.

The proponent's basic claim is that the court also charged that there was a second and additional requirement, since none of the attesting witnesses saw the testatrix subscribe, and that this requirement was that each of the three witnesses did see the testatrix' signature on the will at the time he attested it.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the lower court and ordered a new trial due to the erroneous jury instructions regarding the attestation of the will.

There is error in the first case (the appeal from probate), the judgment is set aside and a new trial is ordered.

Who won?

The proponent prevailed in the sense that the Supreme Court ordered a new trial, allowing for another opportunity to prove the will's validity.

The proponent prevailed in the sense that the Supreme Court ordered a new trial, allowing for another opportunity to prove the will's validity.

You must be