Daly v. Wedemeyer
Before: Hart
Synopsis
Nonsuit—Nature of Motion—Question of Law—Demurrer to Evidence.—A motion for a nonsuit, to prevent the submission of a case to the jury, presents a question of law for determination by the court. The motion is equivalent to a demurrer to the evidence, or an objection that, admitting all of the proved facts to be true, they do not in legal effect operate in favor of the plaintiff or entitle him to the relief asked for by him.
Id.—Effect of Evidence—Prima Facie Case—Motion to be Denied. The evidence on a motion for a nonsuit,. at the close of the plaintiff’s ease must be given its full probative force, whether it has been erroneously admitted or not; and on such motion the evidence must be taken most strongly against the defendant; and if the plaintiff has introduced proof enough to make out a prima fade case under his pleading, the motion for a nonsuit at the close of his case should be denied.
Id.—Proceeding to Contest Will—Bules of Nonsuit in Civil Cases Applicable.—In determining whether or not, in a proceeding to contest a will, the evidence produced by the contestant is sufficient to require the submission of the case to the jury, the same rules apply as in civil eases. Every favorable inference fairly arising from the evidence produced must be considered as proved in favor of the contestant; and where the evidence is fairly susceptible of two constructions, the court must take the view most favorable to the contestant; and if there is any substantial evidence tending to sustain the contest, the contestant is entitled to have the ease go to the jury upon its merits, and a nonsuit is improper.
Id.—Contest by Mother of Will to Stranger After Probate—Un- ' due Influence—Improper Nonsuit.—Where a will in favor of a stranger was contested after probate by the mother of deceased, for undue influence, and the evidence shows that he went to live with such stranger, while ill and weak in body and mind, to be cared for by her, and while on his way thither with a friend, he requested him to prepare a will to give his poultry to her for her care, and his farm to his mother, brothers and sisters in Ireland, and when he came to see him the next day to talk further about the will he found him unconscious, and previously said stranger had sent for an attorney to prepare a will in her favor, and after the friend had left for inability to talk with him the will so prepared was executed, and the deceased died the next day, in view of such facts, and other facts and circumstances in proof, the inference is fairly deducible that deceased did not execute the will of his own volition, but by her influence over Ms debilitated mind; and a nonsuit of the contestant was improperly granted.
Opinion — Hart
HART, J.
The contestant instituted proceedings for the revocation of the probate of the last will and testament of her son, James Daly, deceased, and, on the close of her ease, the court, on the motion of the respondent, granted a judgment of nonsuit.
This appeal is from said judgment.
The will purports to give, bequeath and devise all the testator’s estate “of every kind and character and wherever situated to my friend, Mrs. Elizabeth Wedemeyer, absolutely and forever.” Said Elizabeth Wedemeyer is named by the testator as executrix of said will, to act as such “without being required to give any bonds whatever.” The testament also authorizes the executrix “to sell, at either public or private sale, any or all of my estate without any order of court so to do and without any notice of sale. ’ ’
The grounds upon which the revocation of the order admitting said will to probate is urged are: 1. That said will was not properly or duly executed—that is, that the execution of the instrument was unattended by certain essential formalities. 2. That the execution of said will was procured solely by and through undue influence exercised by the beneficiary thereunder upon the testator at the time of the execution of the testament.
As stated, upon the close of the contestant’s case a motion by the respondent for a nonsuit was granted by the court, and the important question involved here is whether the court was justified in thus taking the ease from the jury.
“A motion for a nonsuit presents a .question of law for determination by the court. The motion is tantamount to a
[331]
demurrer to the evidence, or an objection that, admitting all the proved material facts to be true, said facts do not in legal effect operate in favor of plaintiff, or, in other words, do not entitle him to the relief asked for by him.”
(Bush
v.
Wood,
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)