{ "id": 8569345, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF THE WILL OF MRS. LALAH IRENE PERKINS ISLEY", "name_abbreviation": "In re Isley", "decision_date": "1964-12-16", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "239", "last_page": "240", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "263 N.C. 239" } ], "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": "56 S.E. 2d 668", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "231 N.C. 252", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629258 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "259" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/231/0252-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 S.E. 681", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "172 N.C. 520", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11254463 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/172/0520-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 249, "char_count": 3779, "ocr_confidence": 0.594, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.269675917720777e-07, "percentile": 0.6145051313802465 }, "sha256": "5e786a86a332ec48a2e2012fb6afd87bae5e6686dc24e3d73f08e84b0ee2955c", "simhash": "1:9e066702e48e9e86", "word_count": 649 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:48.035422+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF THE WILL OF MRS. LALAH IRENE PERKINS ISLEY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Per Curiam.\nSeveral times in the charge the judge referred to the paper writing as the \u201calleged will.\u201d Propounder insists this was prejudicial error and amounted to an expression of opinion that it was not in fact a valid will. We do not agree. The propounder\u2019s contention arises from a misinterpretation of the following statement from In re Broach\u2019s Will, 172 N.C. 520, 90 S.E. 681; \u201cThe formal execution (of the paper writing) having been formally proven, it was prima facie the will of the deceased, and the caveators were called on to put on evidence to impeach it.\u201d This means that, when in caveat proceedings there is proof of the formal execution of the paper writing in accordance with the requirements of the statute, the paper writing is to be admitted in evidence, and such proof makes it prima facie the will of deceased and will justify, but not compel, a jury verdict that it is the will of deceased; to overcome this prima facie showing caveator must produce evidence to impeach it. The real contest in the instant proceeding was on the issue of mental capacity. The court correctly placed the burden of this issue on caveator. It was for the jury to say whether the paper writing was \u201cthe will\u201d of deceased. Until the jury verdict was in, it was \u201cthe paper writing,\u201d \u201cthe alleged will\u201d or \u201cpurported will.\u201d There was no expression of opinion and the jury could not have been misled.\nThe court\u2019s explanation of the expression \u201cnatural objects of deceased\u2019s bounty\u201d is in substantial compliance with that heretofore approved by this Court. In re Will of Franks, 231 N.C. 252, 259, 56 S.E. 2d 668. The court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the motion to set aside the verdict.\nNo error.\nBobbitt, J.\ntook no part in the consideration or decision of this case.", "type": "majority", "author": "Per Curiam. Bobbitt, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Roberson, Haworth \u25a0& Reese for Propounder.", "Smith, Moore, Smith, Schell & Hunter and James G. Exum, Jr., for Caveator." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF THE WILL OF MRS. LALAH IRENE PERKINS ISLEY.\n(Filed 16 December, 1964.)\nWills \u00a7\u00a7 17, 22\u2014\nNotwithstanding that proof of the formal execution of a paper writing in accordance with statute raises a prima facie presumption that the paper writing is a will, and notwithstanding that the burden is upon caveator to establish mental incapacity relied on by him, the writing is not established as a will until the verdict of the jury does so, and reference in the court\u2019s instruction to the paper writing as the \u201calleged will\u201d is not an expression of opinion by the court that the paper writing was not in fact a valid will.\nBobbitt, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal by the propounder of a paper writing, purporting to be the last will and testament of Lalah Irene Perkins Isley, from Armstrong, J., March 23, 1964, Session of Guileoed (Greensboro Division).\nCaveat proceedings.\nMrs. Lalah Perkins Isley, late of Guilford County, died 24 July 1963. Her purported will, dated 24 August 1960, was admitted to probate in common form on 23 September 1963. The paper writing undertakes to give to Mrs. Isley\u2019s brother, Aubrey Alphonso Perkins, the greater part of the estate. Mrs. Lalah Perkins Isley Mercer, daughter and only child of Mrs. Isley, filed a caveat in October 1963, alleging, inter alia, that at the time of the execution of the paper writing Mrs. Isley was without mental capacity to make a will. Prior to the caveat proceedings the Wachovia Bank and Trust Company was appointed trustee of the estate of Aubrey Alphonso Perkins, propounder, because of his incompetency. The trustee is acting on behalf of the propounder in this proceeding.\nThe jury found that Mrs. Isley lacked mental capacity to make a valid will, and judgment was entered declaring said paper writing is not the will of Mrs. Isley. Propounder appeals.\nRoberson, Haworth \u25a0& Reese for Propounder.\nSmith, Moore, Smith, Schell & Hunter and James G. Exum, Jr., for Caveator." }, "file_name": "0239-01", "first_page_order": 277, "last_page_order": 278 }