Black v. Black

8 Citing cases

  1. Hutchins v. Barlow

    74 So. 2d 870 (Miss. 1954)   Cited 4 times

    (2) Undue influence is a species of fraud and like fraud and forgery, requires strong, clear and convincing proof. Black v. Black (Tex.), 240 S.W.2d 458; Buhau v. Keesler, 328 Pa. 312, 194 A. 917; Croft v. Gindow, 183 Va. 649, 33 S.E.2d 208; Madden v. Cornett, 290 Ky. 268, 160 S.W.2d 607; Mullins v. Coleman, 175 Va. 235, 7 S.E.2d 877; Truckers Exchange Bank v. Conroy, 190 Miss. 242, 199 So. 301. (3) The circumstances, in order to be sufficient to justify submission to a jury, must relate to the execution of the will itself.

  2. Lowery v. Saunders

    666 S.W.2d 226 (Tex. App. 1984)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that it is proper to receive evidence of all relevant matters that occurred within a reasonable time before or after execution of the will being offered

    Undue influence has been defined further as that dominion acquired by one person over the mind of another, which prevents the latter from exercising his discretion, which destroys his free agency, and which compels him to do something against his will from fear, or from a desire of peace, or from some feeling that he is unable to resist. Black v. Black, 240 S.W.2d 458 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1951, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The undue influence must have been exercised at the time the will was executed.

  3. Reynolds v. Park

    485 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Civ. App. 1972)   Cited 26 times

    According to the witnesses present at the execution of the will, Mrs. Park said nothing to Mr. Park while he was having it read to him by the attorney, while testator was reading it to himself or while he was signing it. It is well settled that opportunity to exercise influence is not proof that the same was in fact exercised. Black v. Black, 240 S.W.2d 458 (Tex.Civ.App. — Amarillo 1951, writ ref'd n.r.e.). There is evidence that on the day of execution Mr. Park was in a weakened condition and had been administered some drugs.

  4. Short v. Potts

    473 S.W.2d 338 (Tex. Civ. App. 1971)   Cited 2 times

    When the trial court disregards jury findings, the evidence must be viewed by this court in the light most favorable to the verdict of the jury. Brown v. Dallas Ry. Terminal Company, 226 S.W.2d 135 (Tex.Civ.App., Amarillo, 1949, writ ref.); Black v. Black, 240 S.W.2d 458 (Tex.Civ.App., Amarillo, 1951, writ ref., n.r.e.). It should be noted that Rule 301, supra, does not say that the trial court may disregard a jury finding because of factual insufficiency, but only a finding which has No support in the evidence.

  5. Kirkpatrick v. Raggio

    319 S.W.2d 362 (Tex. Civ. App. 1958)   Cited 14 times

    Where the evidence on such an issue is so indefinite and uncertain as to preclude a finding, the issue should not be submitted. Black v. Black, Tex.Civ.App., 240 S.W.2d 458. Rule 301, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that the court may render judgment non obstante veredicto of a directed verdict would have been proper.

  6. Jones v. Hortenstine

    291 S.W.2d 761 (Tex. Civ. App. 1956)   Cited 8 times

    Abstractions or conclusions presented in lieu of a point of error in briefing are not acceptable when no alleged error of the trial court is shown. Black v. Black, Tex.Civ.App., 240 S.W.2d 458. A point of error is an indispensable part of a brief. Wagley v. Fambrough, Tex.Civ.App., 163 S.W.2d 1072, affirmed 140 Tex. 577, 169 S.W.2d 478. A point of error should be concisely stated directing the court's attention to the alleged error relied upon for reversal. Rule 418, T.R.C.P. Mere abstractions presented as points of error violates the provisions of Rule 418.

  7. Gray's Estate, in re

    279 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Civ. App. 1955)   Cited 6 times

    We hold, therefore, that there was not evidence of probative force sufficient to raise the issue of undue influence, and these two points are accordingly overruled. Black v. Black, Tex.Civ.App., 240 S.W.2d 458, w. r. n. r. e.; Pierson v. Pierson, Tex. Civ.App., 57 S.W.2d 633, writ refused; Burgess v. Sylvester, 143 Tex. 25, 182 S.W.2d 358; Id., Tex.Civ.App., 177 S.W.2d 271; Salinas V. Garcia, Tex.Civ.App., 135 S.W. 588, wr. ref.; Rudersdorf v. Bowers, Tex.Civ.App., 112 S.W.2d 784, writ dismissed; Decker v. Koenig, Tex.Civ.App., 37 S.W.2d 378, writ dismissed; Barksdale v. Dobbins, Tex.Civ.App., 141 S.W.2d 1035; Russell v. Boyles, Tex.Civ.App., 29 S.W.2d 891; Naihaus v. Feigon, Tex.Civ.App., 244 S.W.2d 325; w. r. n. r. e. Appellants' twenty-second point complains of the court's refusal to submit appellants' requested definition of 'sound mind'.

  8. In re Hardwick's Estate

    278 S.W.2d 258 (Tex. Civ. App. 1954)   Cited 11 times

    Contestants therefore failed to discharge the burden of proof on undue influence as pleaded by them or to raise an issue concerning such, and the trial court property refused to submit an issue concerning such to the jury. In re Caruthers' Estate, Tex.Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 946; Cameron v. Houston Land & Trust Co., Tex.Civ.App., 175 S.W.2d 468; Gainer v. Johnson, Tex.Civ.App., 211 S.W.2d 789; Jowers v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 237 S.W.2d 805; Black v. Black, Tex.Civ.App., 240 S.W.2d 458; Curry v. Curry, Tex., 270 S.W.2d 208. Contestants further charge that the trial court erred in overruling their motion for an instructed verdict for the alleged reasons that the evidence conclusively showed undue influence had been exerted upon testator, which question has already been herein determined adversely, and further charged that proponents wholly failed to discharge the burden of proof as to decedent's testamentary capacity to execute the will and codicil.