{ "id": 8625934, "name": "In re Will of MRS. W. W. WALLACE", "name_abbreviation": "In re Will of Wallace", "decision_date": "1947-05-21", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "459", "last_page": "461", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "227 N.C. 459" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "216 N. C., 805", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8615963 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/216/0805-01" ] }, { "cite": "276 Ky., 707", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ky.", "case_ids": [ 8513636 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ky/276/0707-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 Utah, 312", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Utah", "case_ids": [ 8870835 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/utah/75/0312-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 S. E., 1072", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "157 N. C., 429", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658135 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/157/0429-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 S. E., 785", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "171 N. C., 468", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270967 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/171/0468-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 S. E., 876", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "199 N. C., 782", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8615814 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/199/0782-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 379, "char_count": 5809, "ocr_confidence": 0.444, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.916138033315254e-08, "percentile": 0.5359704368864748 }, "sha256": "87d96dcbb5a112ef85494ce2d7df64de004aec36fafaaae4d557c56147fd2c38", "simhash": "1:07991f847f429e9e", "word_count": 1020 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:20:04.384970+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re Will of MRS. W. W. WALLACE." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe will in question was written in a small notebook or diary. At the top of the page on which it appears are the printed words and figures, \u201cJuly 1940 Thursday 4.\u201d Over the figure \u201c0\u201d in the \u201c1940\u201d the figure \u201c2\u201d is written and_ across the \u201c4\u201d after the word \u201cThursday\u201d the figure \u201c3\u201d is written. The evidence tends to show that these written changes of the printed figures were in the handwriting of Mrs. Wallace, as well as the balance of the paper-writing.\nOn th\u00e9 hearing, the jurors were hesitant to answer that \u201cthe paper writing and every part thereof\u201d was the holograph will of Mrs. W. W. Wallace, because of the printed words and figures appearing thereon. The court thereupon instructed the jury that a holograph will was not required to be dated, or to indicate where it was prepared, and that if the written words appearing in the handwriting of the deceased were sufficient within themselves to express her dispositive intent, the mere presence thereon of printed words, not essential to the meaning of the words in writing, would not perforce destroy the testamentary character of the script. To this instruction, the caveators objected and have assigned the same as error.\nThe principal question presented by the appeal is the correctness of the foregoing instruction. It was taken from the case of In re Will of Lowrance, 199 N. C., 782, 155 S. E., 876, and is supported by wbat was said therein. The decisions in Alexander v. Johnston, 171 N. C., 468, 88 S. E., 785, and In re Jenkins\u2019 Will, 157 N. C., 429, 72 S. E., 1072, likewise support the position. In accord, also, are the pertinent decisions in other jurisdictions. In re Yowell\u2019s Estate, 75 Utah, 312, 285 P., 285; Blankenship v. Blankenship, 276 Ky., 707, 124 S. W. (2d), 1060.\nNor is the case of In re Wall\u2019s Will, 216 N. C., 805, 5 S. E. (2d), 937, at variance with the above decisions. There, the jury found that the alteration was significant and not in the handwriting of the alleged testatrix. A similar result would have followed here, had the jury found the presence of the printed words essential to the meaning of the words in writing.\nMoreover, the will was not formally challenged on this ground. The basis of the caveat is undue influence and mental incapacity.\nIn answering a question of one of the jurors in which he stated the will was made in 1943, the court inadvertently replied: \u201cThe purported will was made in 1942.\u201d This was a lapsus linguae, but it is not perceived wherein it was hurtful. We regard it as a harmless inadvertence.\nOn the issue as to whether the paper-writing- was \u201cexecuted according to the formalities of law,\u201d the -court directed a verdict for the pro-pounders. This was also an inadvertence in the light of the testimony of Mrs. Marjorie W. Wents that the entire script was not in the handwriting of her mother, the deceased. However, as the jury had already found, under proper instructions and in answer to a prior issue, that the \u201cpaper-writing and every part thereof\u201d was in the handwriting of the deceased, it would seem that this latter instruction should not be held for reversible error.\nConsidering the record in its entirety, we conclude that no prejudicial error has been made to appear.\nThe verdict and judgment will he upheld.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Henry L. Strickland and J. G. Sedbcrry for propounders, appellees.", "Morgan B. Gilreath and Ralph V. Kidd for caveators, appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re Will of MRS. W. W. WALLACE.\n(Filed 21 May, 1947.)\n1. Wilis \u00a7 as\u2014\nA paper-writing probated as a holograph will had the day, date and year printed on its face, with changes in the date and year in script. There was evidence that the changes were in the handwriting of the deceased. Held: An instruction that a holograph will is not required to be dated and that if the written words appearing in the handwriting of the deceased were sufficient within themselves to express dispositive intent, the mere presence of the printed words and figures, not essential to the meaning of the words in writing, would not perforce destroy the testamentary character of the script, is without error.\n2. Appeal and Error \u00a7 39f\u2014\nA lapsus linguae on an immaterial aspect of the case which could not have affected the result cannot be held for reversible error.\n3. Wills \u00a7 25\u2014\nWhere the court has properly submitted to the jury conflicting evidence as to whether the paper-writing probated and every part thereof is in the handwriting of deceased, an inadvertence in directing a verdict on a subsequent issue as to whether the paper-writing was executed according to the formalities of the law, in the light of the jury\u2019s affirmative finding to the previous issue, is not held for reversible error.\nAppeal by caveators from Alley, J., at November Term, 1946, of jVIecklenbukg.\nIssue of devisavit vel non raised by a caveat to tbe holograph will of Mrs. W. W. Wallace.\nOn, 4 December, 1945, tbe Clerk of tbe Superior Court of Mecklenburg County admitted- to probate in common form tbe following script:\n\u201c1942\n(July 1940) 2\n(Thursday 4) 3\n\u201cMy Birthday 66 years old all so glad when I die I no that they want all my money I am hungry now My money is all in land not but one child has helped me that is Aliene Wallace she has spent money for me and helped papa Eight hundred dollars to berrie her sister its offul to have such mean children in this world I want Everything I leave given to Aliene she sure deserves it in full\nMRS W W Wallace\u201d\nThereafter, ten of Mrs. Wallace\u2019s twelve living children filed a caveat alleging: (1) undue influence, and (2) mental incapacity.\nThe matter was thereupon transferred to the civil issue docket, and upon the hearing the jury sustained the paper-writing as the last will and testament of the deceased.\nFrom judgment on the verdict, the caveators appeal, assigning errors.\nHenry L. Strickland and J. G. Sedbcrry for propounders, appellees.\nMorgan B. Gilreath and Ralph V. Kidd for caveators, appellants." }, "file_name": "0459-01", "first_page_order": 507, "last_page_order": 509 }