mentary capacity, or any other fact invalidating a will, is sufficient to go to the jury, though it be controverted by countervailing evidence.8

418. Control of Court over Issues and Verdict.-On the trial of an action to contest a will on the ground that the testator was of unsound mind, and also for undue influence in the execution of the will, it is not error for the court, by a proper instruction, to withdraw from the jury the question of undue influence where there is not sufficient evidence that the will was procured by undue influence. Jurors are often inclined to disregard the evidence and to set aside a will upon some excuse found outside of the evidence, because the dispositions made by the testator do not comport with their personal notions of what is just and proper. Therefore it is incumbent upon the court not to permit a will to be set aside except upon substantial evidence tending to show that it is not in fact the will of the testator.10 Especially when the validity of a will is contested on the ground of undue influence, the court should be careful in excluding from the consideration of the jury incompetent and irrelevant evidence, since such evidence, if once admitted, may produce an effect which cannot be effaced by subsequent instructions.11 The control by the court may be exercised by directing the jury to find against the contestant, and in favor of the will,12 or, in proper cases, by directing the jury to return a verdict in favor of the contestant.13 For example when it appears on the face of the will that it was not signed at the end thereof as required by statute, it is not error for the trial judge to direct a verdict that the writing is not a valid will.14 A verdict finding the revocation of a will cannot be directed by the court if there is evidence of facts that would sustain the will, although there are also facts in evidence which would sustain an inference of its revocation.15 In an action contesting the validity of a will for want of mental capacity in the testator, and undue influence exerted upon him, if the evidence on these issues is conflicting, they should be submitted to the jury for determination,1

8. In re Murphy, 43 Mont. 353, 116 Pac. 1004, Ann. Cas. 1912C 380.

9. In re Kaufman, 117 Cal. 288, 49 Pac. 192, 59 A. S. R. 179; Stevens v. Leonard, 154 Ind. 67, 56 N. E. 27, 77 A. S. R. 446; Reynolds v. Sevier, 165 Ky. 158, 176 S. W. 961, L.R.A. 1915E 593; Auld v. Cathro, 20 N. D. 461, 128 N. W. 1025, Ann. Cas. 1913A 90, 32 L.R.A.(N.S.) 71.

10. In re Murphy, 43 Mont. 353, 116 Pac. 1004, Ann. Cas. 1912C 380. 11. In re Kaufman, 117 Cal. 288, 49 Pac. 192, 59 A. S. R. 179.

16

Pac. 1175, Ann. Cas. 1915B 951, 51
L.R.A. (N.S.) 927; Pringle v. Bur-
roughs, 185 N. Y. 375, 78 N. E. 150,
7 Ann. Cas. 264; LaRue v. Lee, 63 W.
Va. 388, 60 S. E. 3S8, 129 A. S. R.
978, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 968.

94 Pac. 312, 15 Ann. Cas. 548.
13. Snodgrass v. Smith, 42 Colo. 60,

14. Sears v. Sears, 77 Ohio St. 104, 82 N. E. 1067, 11 Ann. Cas. 1008, 17

L.R.A.(N.S.) 353.

15. Managle v. Parker, 75 N. H. 139, 71 Atl. 637, Ann. Cas. 1912A 269, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 180.

12. In re Shell, 28 Colo. 167, 63 Pac. 413, 89 A. S. R. 181, 53 L.R.A. 16. Manatt v. Scott, 106 Ia. 203, 76 387; In re Carey, 56 Colo. 77, 136 N. W. 717, 68 A. S. R. 293.

and it is reversible error to exclude all the evidence and direct a verdict where there is evidence fairly tending to establish undue influence on the part of the beneficiary.17 It seems that where the questions of mental incompetency and undue influence are both submitted to the jury, and both are determined affirmatively, the fact that the finding upon one of them is without support in the evidence does not entitle the proponent to a reversal if there is evidence on which the other finding can be upheld.18

419. Costs.-Under the statutory provisions existing in many of the states authorizing the court in a will contest to award costs to either party in its discretion,19 costs may be awarded not only to a successful contestant,20 and against the unsuccessful proponent of a will,1 but, in a proper case, may be allowed to the unsuccessful party, as for instance in an action to construe a will. It has, however, been held that where one is a party to a suit for the construction of a will in his own interest and not for the benefit of the estate and claims some benefit under the will, he is not entitled to costs. When there is probable cause for contesting a will, the costs and a reasonable attorney's fee for the contestant may be taxed against the estate, or the costs of both parties may be allowed to be paid out of the estate. Where it is the duty of an executor to probate the will of his testator, he will not be held personally liable for costs in the absence of showing of bad faith, but he will be entitled to his costs and attorney's fees whether the will is established or not. On the other hand it has been held

17. Cheney v. Goldy, 225 Ill. 394, 80 N. E. 289, 116 A. S. R. 145; Abbott v. Church, 288 Ill. 91, 123 N. E. 306, 4 A. L. R. 975. Generally as to direction of verdict, see TRIAL, vol. 26, p. 1065 et seq.

18. In re Van Houten, 147 Ia. 725, 124 N. W. 886, 140 A. S. R. 340.

19. Cheever v. North, 106 Mich. 390, 64 N. W. 455, 58 A. S. R. 499, 37 L.R.A. 561; In re Donges, 103 Wis. 497, 79 N. W. 786, 74 A. S. R. 885. Note: Ann. Cas. 1915C 714. 20. In re Gertsen, 127 Wis. 602, 106 N. W. 1096, 115 A. S. R. 1060.

1. Singer v. Taylor, 91 Kan. 190, 137 Pac. 931, Ann. Cas. 1915C 713 and note; Moore v. Alden, 80 Me. 301, 14 Atl. 199, 6 A. S. R. 203; Collyer v. Collyer, 110 N. Y. 481, 18 N. E. 110, 6 A. S. R. 405; Jones v. Knappen, 63 Vt. 391, 22 Atl. 630, 14 L.R.A.

allowance of costs and counsel fees to the unsuccessful party in an action to construe a will).

3. Tincher v. Arnold, 147 Fed. 665, 77 C. C. A. 649, 8 Ann. Cas. 917, 7 L.R.A.(N.S.) 471; VanDerlyn V. Mack, 137 Mich. 146, 100 N. W. 278, 109 A. S. R. 669, 4 Ann. Cas. 879, 66 L.R.A. 437.

Note: Ann. Cas. 1915C 715.

4. Seebrock v. Fedawa, 33 Neb. 413, 50 N. W. 270, 29 A. S. R. 488; Chaffee v. Baptist Missionary Convention, 10 Paige (N. Y.) 85, 40 Am. Dec. 225 and note.

5. Clapp v. Fullerton, 34 N. Y. 190, 90 Am. Dec. 681.

6. Meeker v. Meeker, 74 Ia. 352, 37 N. W. 773, 7 A. S. R. 489; Chaffee v. Baptist Missionary Convention, 10 Paige (N. Y.) 85, 40 Am. Dec. 225. Note: 93 Am. Dec. 396. 7. McIntire v. McIntire, 192 U. S. 2. Note: Ann. Cas. 1915C 715 116, 24 S. Ct. 196, 48 U. S. (L. ed.) (containing a full discussion of the 371; Smith v. Haire, 133 Tenn. 343,

293.

that when the law does not cast upon the person nominated executor in a will the legal duty of procuring its probate such person, though acting in good faith, is not entitled to payment out of the fund for his services and expenses in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to probate the will against a contest by the heir upon the ground of want of testamentary capacity, even if he is successful in the first instance in securing its allowance in the probate court. Ordinarily the person who is nominated as executor in an instrument purporting to be the will of a decedent, which will is contested, may cast the burden of such contest upon those who are to be benefited by the probate of the paper, or may demand indemnity from them. If he assumes the burden himself and is defeated, he becomes personally liable for the expenses of the contest. Executors are not liable for costs on appeal from probate, if they have been summoned as parties and have failed to appear and defend.10 Costs on the affirmance by the federal supreme court of a decree of the court of appeals of the District of Columbia which affirmed a decree of the supreme court of the district in a suit to construe a will, upholding all the disputed provisions, will be taxed against the unsuccessful appellants, where the executor did not appeal from the original decree nor from the decree of affirmance of the court of appeals.11

Review of Decisions in Probate Proceedings

420. In General.-As a general rule, any person interested may appeal from the decree probating or refusing to probate a will.12 The person named as executor in a will is such an aggrieved or interested party that he may prosecute an appeal either from a judgment refus

181 S. W. 161, Ann. Cas. 1916D 529; Roy v. Roy, 16 Grat. (Va.) 418, 84 Am. Dec. 696.

8. Kelly v. Kennedy, 133 Minn. 278, 158 N. W. 395, Ann. Cas. 1918D 164 and note, L.R.A.1917A 448.

9. Dodd v. Anderson, 197 N. Y. 466, 90 N. E. 1137, 18 Ann. Cas. 738, 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 336.

10. Comstock v. Hadlyme Ecclesiastical Soc., 8 Conn. 254, 20 Am. Dec. 100.

Dowie v. Sutton, 227 Ill. 183, 81 N. E. 395, 118 A. S. R. 266; In re VanHouten, 147 Ia. 725, 124 N. W. 886, 140 A. S. R. 340; Randolph v. Lampkin, 90 Ky. 551, 14 S. W. 538, 10 L.R.A. 87; Stilphen's Appeal, 100 Me. 146, 60 Atl. 888, 4 Ann. Cas. 158; Cecil v. Cecil, 19 Md. 72, 81 Am. Dec. 626; Sherman v. Warren, 211 Mass. 288, 97 N. E. 892, Ann. Cas. 1913B 614; Graham v. Burch, 47 Minn. 171, 49 N. W. 697, 28 A. S. R. 339; Dickey v. Malechi, 6 Mo. 177, 34 Am. Dec. 130; State v. Guinotte, 156 Mo. 513, 57 S. W. 281, 50 L.R.A. 787; State v. 12. In re Edelman, 148 Cal. 233, McQuillin, 246 Mo. 674, 152 S. W. 82 Pac. 962, 113 A. S. R. 231; St. 341, Ann. Cas. 1914B 526; Hardy v. Leger's Appeal, 34 Conn. 434, 91 Am. Merrill, 56 N. H. 227, 22 Am. Rep. Dec. 735; Potts v. House, 6 Ga. 324, 441; Chilcote v. Hoffman, 97 Ohio 50 Am. Dec. 329; Ure v. Ure, 223 Ill. St. 98, 119 N. E. 364, L.R.A.1918D 454, 79 N. E. 153, 114 A. S. R. 336; 575; Bell v. Davis, 43 Okla. 221, 142

11. Iglehart v. Iglehart, 204 U. S. 478, 27 S. Ct. 329, 51 U. S. (L. ed.) 575.

ing in the first instance to admit a will to probate,18 or from a judgment disallowing or setting aside a will which has previously been admitted to probate.14 But one who is a petitioner for the probate of a will cannot appeal from the decree of the court granting the prayer of his own petition.15 In some jurisdictions the remedy by appeal is the only appropriate procedure to contest the will, and a bill in equity will not lie for that purpose; 16 while in others the two remedies by appeal and by bill in equity are concurrent.17 A proceeding involving the original probate of a last will and testament in the District of Columbia is subject to review by the supreme court of the United States by writ of error.18 The death of a contestant pending appeal from an order establishing the validity of a will does not abate the proceeding, but the court will review the record and determine the correctness of the ruling.19 When an appeal has been taken it is not within the province of an appellate court to weigh the evidence, although a preponderance of it against the finding or verdict is apparent.20

421. Time for Appeal.-When a right of appeal is accorded to parties adversely affected by the probate of a will, the time within which such appeal may be taken is usually fixed by statute, but it seems that a defect of want of jurisdiction, either of person or subject matter, appearing upon the face of the record, may be taken advantage of at any time.

422. Prohibition and Mandamus.-Where there is a remedy by appeal, a writ of prohibition will not lie to arrest proceedings in which a will is offered to be proved in a court of probate. Nor will mandamus issue to a probate judge to compel him to admit to probate a will pending an appeal from his refusal to admit to probate another will of

Pac. 1011, Ann. Cas. 1917C 1075; In re Sullivan, 40 Wash. 202, 82 Pac. 297, 111 A. S. R. 895.

Note: Ann. Cas. 1913C 853. 13. Dowie v. Sutton, 227 Ill. 183, 81 N. E. 395, 118 A. S. R. 266; Welch v. Adams, 63 N. H. 344, 1 Atl. 1, 56 Am. Rep. 521; In re Paulson,. 127 Wis. 612, 107 N. W. 484, 7 Ann. Cas. 652, 5 L.R.A.(N.S.) 804.

Ill.

Note: Ann. Cas. 1917C 1074. 14. Hesterberg v. Clark, 166 241, 46 N. E. 734, 57 A. S. R. 135. Note: Ann. Cas. 1917C 1079. 15. In re Thompson, 114 Me. 338, 96 Atl. 238, L.R.A.1918A 911.

16. Tarver v. Tarver, 9 Pet. 174, 9 U. S. (L. ed.) 91.

17. Couchman v. Couchman, 104 Ky. 680, 47 S. W. 858, 44 L.R.A. 136. 18. Ormsby v. Webb, 134 U. S. 47,

10 S. Ct. 478, 33 U. S. (L. ed.) 805; Campbell v. Porter, 162 U. S. 478, 16 S. Ct. 871, 40 U. S. (L. ed.) 1044.

19. Braeuel v. Reuther, 270 Mo. 603, 193 S. W. 283, Ann. Cas. 1918B 533, L.R.A.1918A 444 and note.

20. Stevens v. Leonard, 154 Ind. 67, 56 N. E. 27, 77 A. S. R. 446.

1. Couchman v. Couchman, 104 Ky. 680, 47 S. W. 858, 44 L.R.A. 136; State v. District Ct., 34 Mont. 96, 85 Pac. 866, 115 Ann. Cas. 510, 9 Ann. Cas. 418, 6 L.R.A. (N.S.) 617; Wall v. Wall, 123 Pa. St. 545, 16 Atl. 598, 10 A. S. R. 549.

2. Wall v. Wall, 123 Pa. St. 545, 16 Atl. 598, 10 A. S. R. 549.

3. Whitehead v. Roberts, 86 Conn. 351, 85 Atl. 538, Ann. Cas. 1914A 131 and note. And see generally, PROMIBITION, vol. 22, p. 9 et seq.

the same testator. But the refusal of a probate court to take jurisdiction, or, after having acquired jurisdiction, refusal to proceed in its regular exercise, may be corrected by mandamus. Thus, if a court erroneously strikes from the files a contest of a will, on the ground that it was inadmissible because of a previous contest, which had been dismissed for a failure to state a ground of contest, a writ of mandamus will issue to compel such court to take jurisdiction of the contest, the contestant having no adequate legal remedy."

4. People v. Knickerbocker, 114 Ill. 539, 2 N. E. 507, 55 Am. Rep. 879. And see MANDAMUS, vol. 18, p. 313 et seq.

410

5. Raleigh v. First Judicial District Ct., 24 Mont. 306, 61 Pac. 991, 81 A. S. R. 431.