{
  "id": 5397790,
  "name": "Matthew Smith et al., Defendants in Error, v. Henry Smith, Executor, et al., Plaintiffs in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "86",
  "last_page": "87",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "206 Ill. App. 86"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 162,
    "char_count": 2232,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.588,
    "sha256": "9342dd0d3f474b8b0181f0792f50146efff4f14785a9e37301234e120f5df25e",
    "simhash": "1:459ee8a29829f0a9",
    "word_count": 362
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:33:48.967362+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Matthew Smith et al., Defendants in Error, v. Henry Smith, Executor, et al., Plaintiffs in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McBride\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Wills, \u00a7 196*\u2014when undue influence is question for jury. Whether or not a testator was unduly influenced in the making of his will, held, under the circumstances proven, a question solely for the jury.\n4. Wills, \u00a7 114 \u2014when evidence sufficient to show undue influence. Evidence held sufficient to sustain a finding that the testator was unduly influenced in making his will.\nBoggs, J., dissenting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McBride"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Albert & Albert and Arthur Roe, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "Brown & Burnside, for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Matthew Smith et al., Defendants in Error, v. Henry Smith, Executor, et al., Plaintiffs in Error.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Wills, \u00a7 49 \u2014when evidence is sufficient to show testamentary capacity. Finding as to the capacity of the testator in executing the will in question, held not against the manifest weight of the evidence, notwithstanding the evidence consisted mostly of opinions of the witnesses formed from conversations had with the testator at different times and not very much, if any, with reference to business transactions.\n2. Wills, \u00a7 114*-\u2014what is not conclusive evidence of undue influence. The fact of inequality of distribution by a testator in his will of his estate is not of itself conclusive evidence of undue influence, but may be considered as a circumstance tending to establish undue influence in connection with the other facts and circumstances proven.\nError to the Circuit Court of Fayette county; the Hon. William B. Weight, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 13, 1917.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nBill by Matthew Smith and others, complainants, against Henry Smith, executor of the estate of Frederick Smith, deceased, and others, defendants, to contest the will of the deceased. From a decree finding that the will in question was not the will of the deceased, defendants bring error.\nAlbert & Albert and Arthur Roe, for plaintiffs in error.\nBrown & Burnside, for defendants in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Veis. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0086-01",
  "first_page_order": 130,
  "last_page_order": 131
}