Wills — Probate — Issue devisavit vel non — Undue influence — Evidence.
1. On an issue devisavit vel non, where undue influence in the making of a codicil is alleged, the burden of proof is not shifted to the proponents, because directions of the testatrix as to the codicil were conveyed by a daughter to the scrivener, who was the husband of a granddaughter, and both of these parties profited pecuniarily by the codicil.
2. In such case, as it was shown that testatrix was of sound mind, and there was no direct evidence of fraud or undue influence, and both parties were not strangers but relations to whom testatrix would naturally resort for help in the matter of making her will, it was immaterial that such parties rendered assistance to testatrix in the making of the codicil.
3. Under the evidence in this case it was not shown that the disposition of her property made by the testatrix was an unnatural one.
Argued October 2, 1925.
PER CURIAM, November 23, 1925:
We affirm the judgment entered in this case on the opinion of the learned President Judge of the court below.