Hall v. Sampson

California Court of Appeal Jun 14, 1939 No. Civ. 12177Published

Before: McCOMB

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of respondents, finding no merit in the contestants' claims regarding trial procedure, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or the denial of a new trial.

Issues

Whether the case was properly at issue when set for trial despite the absence of appearances by non-beneficiary parties.
Whether the trial court erred in denying a continuance or failing to provide sufficient time for trial preparation.
Whether the trial court erred in sustaining objections to evidence without an offer of proof.
Whether the trial court erred in its jury instructions and in denying a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“before the ruling will be reviewed by an appellate court, an offer of what is proposed to be proven must first be made to the trial court”

“before a motion for a new trial will be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the moving party must show to the satisfaction of the court that he had exercised reasonable diligence”

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment in favor of respondents after trial before a jury in an action to revoke the admission of a will to probate on the ground of undue influence, contestants appeal.

The essential facts are:

February 17, 1935, decedent Laura S. Hunt executed her last will and testament. Thereafter she died and on December 22, 1936, her will was admitted to probate. June 21, 1937, contestants filed a petition to have the probate of the will revoked. October 1, 1937, an order was made by which the present counsel for contestants were substituted as counsel of record in place and stead of the attorneys who had previously represented contestants.

October 22, 1937, a motion was made by respondents to dismiss the petition contesting the admission of the will to

[360]

probate or to set the matter for trial forthwith. In ruling upon the motion the superior court set the matter for trial on November 29, 1937, on which date the trial commenced, the contest being based solely on the ground that decedent’s will was procured by the undue influence of respondents.

Contestants rely for reversal of the judgment on these propositions:

First: The case was not properly at issue when the trial court set it for trial, because only one of the respondents had filed an appearance when the setting was made.

Second: The trial court did not afford contestants sufficient time to prepare for trial.

Third: The trial court committed prejudicial error in sustaining objections to certain evidence offered by contestants.

Fourth: The trial court committed prejudicial error in

(a)

giving instructions to the jury, and (b) refusing to give certain instructions requested by contestants.

Fifth: The trial court committed prejudicial error in refusing to grant contestants’ motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

Contestants’ first proposition is without merit. Prior to the date of trial all respondents had filed an answer to the contest with the exception of Emil A. Bruder and Warren A. Pike, neither of whom were beneficiaries under the will or heirs of decedent. They were mere strangers to the proceedings and as such not necessary parties.

Hall v. Sampson

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief