MARTIN v. STAPLES

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 9476.

Attorney(S)

Mr. Louis E. Spiegler, of Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Sol M. Alpher, of Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant. Mr. John P. Labofish, of Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Joseph George Dondero, of Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Judges

Henry White Edgerton
Elijah Barrett Prettyman

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was taken from a jury's verdict before judgment had been entered. It is therefore premature and must be dismissed. St. Louis Amusement Co. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 8 Cir., 156 F.2d 400; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 58, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. However, we have examined the record and find that the judgment would be affirmed if it were before us. Appellant is the beneficiary of a will which has been denied probate because the jury found that the will had been procured by undue influence, duress, or coercion. Appellant, conceding that the definitions of undue influence, duress and coercion in the instructions of the trial judge to the jury were correct, urges that there was no evidence to support the jury's verdict. We find that the evidence was ample.

Appeal dismissed.

MARTIN v. STAPLES

MARTIN v. STAPLES

Comments