« ZurückWeiter »
5. WILLS—Construction Contingent - Remainders-Executory Devises.-A devise to a person named, “for life, with remainder to her children, share and share alike, the child or children of a deceased child to represent and take the parent's share,” carries a vested transmissible interest in remainder to the child of the life tenant, and children born to such child during the life of the tenant for life take by way of executory devise. (S. C.) Rutledge v. Fish. burne, 757.
6. WILLS—Subsequently Acquired Real Estate. Under the common law a will passes only such real estate as the testator owned at the time of its execution, but under the Colorado statutes it passes after-acquired realty if such appears to be the testator's intention. (Colo.) Clayton v. Hallett, 117.
7. WILLS—Insane Delusions.—To justify the setting aside of & will on the ground that the testator was possessed of an insane delusion, it must be shown, not merely that he was the victim of such delusion, but also that he was controlled by it in the making of his will, and was led by it to improperly disregard his natural heirs. (Pa. St.) Buchanan v. Pierie, 725.
8. WILLS-Believers in Spiritualism, when testamentary capa. city is in question, must be considered in the same light as those who share in any other religious belief. (Pa. St.) Buchanan v. Pierie, 725.
9. WILLS Spiritualism as Avoiding. The will of ono who believes in spiritualism is not, on that account alone, void; nor is it evidence of mental unsoundness. It must be shown, in order to avoid a will on that account, that it was the offspring of such belief, (Pa. St.) Buchanan v. Pierie, 725.
10. WILLS_Spiritualism as Avoiding.--A mere belief of the testator that he could, through mediums, communicate with the spirits of the dead, is not sufficient to avoid his will, without proof that he believed or admitted that he was influenced in any way by spirits in making his will, especially when he has amply provided therein or his natural living heirs. (Pa. St.) Buchanan v. Pierie, 725.
See Power of Sale.
WITNESSES. 1. WITNESSES.—A Wife is not competent to Testify, in replevin :: against her husband alone, that the property belongs to her. (Mo.) Layson v. Cooper, 545.
2. WITNESSES.--Conversations Between Husband and Wife short time before he was shot are inadmissible in an action to recover his life insurance. (Iowa) Sutcliffe v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Assn., 298.
3. WITNESSES.-The Mere Presence of a Physician does not render inadmissible the admissions of a wounded man concerning his suicide, when not made to the physician nor connected with his professional duties. (Iowa) Sutcliffe v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Assn., 298.
4. WITNESSES—Husband and Wife-Res Gestae.- Where a man is shot in the presence of his wife, what he did and said at the time concerning the shooting are considered parts of the res gestae, rather than communications betwen husband and wife, when, in an action on his life insurance policy, it is claimed that he committed suicide. (Iowa) Sutcliffe v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Assn., 298.
Am. St. Rep., Vol. 97--72
5. TRIALS—Right of Re-examination to Explain Answers Given on Cross-examination. If there is any occasion to explain an an• swer given on cross-examination, the court should not exclude a question by way of re-examination proposed for the purpose of eliciting such explanation where there is no effort at undue repetition of the same statement. (Tex.) Colorado etc. Ry. Co. v. Garren, 939.
6. JURY TRIAL -Instruction Relating to the Interest of a Witness, When May be Refused.—The court may refuse an instruction to the effect that the jury, in passing upon the testimony of a party, may take into consideration his situation and his interest in the result of the verdict and all the circumstances surrounding him, and give to it only such weight as they may deem it fairly entitled to, if testimony against him has been given by a witness who is also deeply interested in a moral sense, and no such direction as to his testimony is included in the proposed instruction. (W. Va.) Tomp. kins v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co., 1006.
contracts to pay more than the legal fees to, 150, 151.
WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS. 1. A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS is Never Granted to relieve from consequences arising after the judgment. The unvary. ing test of the right to the writ is mistake or lack of knowledge of facts inhering in the judgment itself. (Kan.) Collins v. State, 361.
2. A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS Cannot be Employed to obtain relief from the misfortune of being unable to prosecute an appeal for the correction of errors of law. Hence, it cannot be granted on the ground that the defendant was prevented from ap• pealing his case because of his inability to make up a record embody. ing his exceptions within the time allowed by law. (Kan.) Collins v. State, 361.
requirements of, 366.
stitute a ground for, 369. errors of fact constitute the sole ground for, 369. errors of fact relating to the death or disability of a party, 370. in criminal cases cannot involve a re-examination of the evi.
dence of the crinie, 368. in criminal cases to set aside convictions based upon pleas
coerced from the accused, 371. in criminal cases, when available, 371.
Writs of Error Coram Nobis, in criminal cases where the party had
a remedy by moving for a new trial, 371. infancy of party as a ground for, 370, insanity of party as a ground for, 370. issues in the original suit cannot be retired upon, 368. issues of fact, what may be tried upon, 368. joinder and nonjoinder of parties in, 365. judgments upon, 369. laches as a defense to, 367. limitation, statutes of, whether apply to, 367. neglect of clerk or of attorney as a ground for, 370. negligence as a defer to, 366, 367, 372. notice of applicatio, 367. objects of, 363. obsoletism of, 372. parties at whose i stance may issue, 365. pleas to, 367. process, errors of fact in issuing of, when constitute grounds
whether are writs of right, 365.
differences between and writs of error, 363.