IN RE ESTATE OF MAGGIE HUDSON STEWART, DECEASED. ROSA HUDSON, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES STEWART, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves an appeal from a county judge's order revoking a will due to the testator's lack of testamentary capacity. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the revocation.
No, the appellate court found substantial competent evidence to sustain the trial court's findings and order revoking the will.
“Although the evidence on the issue of testamentary capacity was conflicting, we find substantial competent evidence to sustain the findings and order of the trial court, and there is no basis in the record to support a conclusion on our part that he misinterpreted the legal effect of the evidence as a whole.”
This quote establishes the appellate court's finding that the lower court's decision was supported by sufficient evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe county judge revoked the Last Will and Testament of Maggie Hudson Stewart, finding she lacked testamentary capacity. The respondent (appellant in …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Revocation Of Will cases and more on FLexlaw
Respondent has appealed from a final order entered by the county judge revoking the Last Will and Testament of Maggie Hudson Stewart on the sole ground that she lacked testamentary capacity to execute the will in question. The order appealed was entered after evidence was taken in support of and in opposition to the petition for revocation.
The principal contention made by appellant is that the trial court misapprehended the legal effect of the evidence adduced before it, and erroneously disregarded and rejected clear and positive proof that the testator possessed sufficient mental capacity to execute the will assaulted. We have carefully reviewed the record of this proceeding and are unable to agree with the contentions made by appellant. Although the evidence on the issue of testamentary capacity was conflicting, we find substantial competent evidence to sustain the findings and order of the trial court, and there is no basis in the record to support a conclusion on our part that he misinterpreted the legal effect of the evidence as a whole. Under these circumstances we are without authority to re-try the case on the facts or substitute our judgment for that of the county judge. See In re Eberhardt’s Estate, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 271. The order appealed is accordingly affirmed.
WIGGINTON, Acting Chief Judge, and STURGIS and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Est. of Douglas Deane v. Edward F. Butler Ad Litem of the Estate of Douglas Deane, 153 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…e will not disturb his .findings and conclusions since they are supported by substantial, competent evidence. Neither do we find that the probate judge misinterpreted the legal effect of the evidence as a whole. In re Stewart’s Estate, Fla.App.1962, 137 So. 2d 614; Williams v. Kane, Fla.1956, 88 So. 2d 599; In re Kiggins’ Estate, Fla.1953, 67 So. 2d 915. The appellant also contends that the probate judge was without authority to restore and re-establish the will. We disagree. In support of this contention,…