McCrillis v. Young Women's Christian Ass'n

California Court of Appeal May 28, 1943 No. Civ. No. 2884Published

Before: Marks

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the revocatory clause of the 1934 will was the product of undue influence, and that the trial court did not err in its procedural rulings regarding the standing of parties or the submission of issues to the jury.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to permit a party who lost her interest in the estate to participate in the second trial.
Whether the trial court erred in submitting the issue of the executor's nomination to the jury after the nominee had died.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the revocatory clause was executed under undue influence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is thoroughly settled in California that a contestant must be an interested party in order to appear in court and contest a will.”

“We cannot reverse a judgment because of harmless error.”

“The evidence of the witnesses testifying at the second trial did not differ materially from that given at the first trial on the question of undue influence.”

MARKS, J. This is an appeal from a judgment admitting to probate the will of Ella M. Webster, deceased, which was dated February 29, 1932, and portions of a will dated March 28, 1934, as a codicil to the earlier will.

The case has been here before. (Estate of Webster, 43 Cal.App.2d 6 [110 P.2d 81, 111 P.2d 355].) The main facts of the case and the undue influence exerted on Mrs. Webster by James L. Crane and Annette M. Crane in connection with certain provisions of the will of March 28, 1934, are there detailed and need not be repeated here. The judgment then before the court for review was affirmed except in two particulars. A portion of the judgment admitting to probate the will of February 29, 1932, and appointing an executor was reversed.

The cause was sent back for partial retrial with the following instructions: “. . . with directions to the trial court to present to the jury the sole questions: (1) Was the provision of the will dated March 28, 1934, ‘revoking any and all other wills and codicils heretofore made and/or executed by me’ made under undue influence? (2) Was the provision of the will dated March 28, 1934, nominating James L. Crane executor made under undue influence? If these questions are answered in the affirmative the court may then be authorized to admit the first will to probate, appoint the executors named and deny probate to those additional portions of the will of March 28, 1934, found to be made under undue influence. If answered in the negative, the court should then make an appropriate order and judgment in accordance with the combined findings of the jury.”

The reversal was made necessary because the trial court had failed to submit to the jury the two questions propounded in the foregoing quotation.

After the reversal of the judgment, and before the second trial, James L. Crane, named executor in the second will, died.

Dora W, McCrillis was a niece of Ella M. Webster. Before the second trial she was permitted to file her answer to the contest of the Young Women’s Christian Association and thus was made a party appearing at the second trial.

The'second trial was had before a jury to which was submitted the two questions we have quoted. They were both answered in the affirmative. The will of . February 29, 1932, was admitted to probate with the portions of the will of [4]March 28, 1934, which had been found to have been executed free from undue influence, and Evan H. Curtiss was appointed executor.

McCrillis v. Young Women's Christian Ass'n

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief