J.H.T. Mills applied to the County Court of Hill County to have an instrument in writing admitted to probate as the will of Ella D. Mills. This was contested by Marshall Mills and others, who denied its genuineness, and appealed to the District Court from a judgment admitting it to probate. In the District Court the will so presented was rejected and probate thereof refused, on verdict of a jury, and J.H.T. Mills appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals. There the judgment of the District Court was reversed and judgment rendered admitting the will to probate ( 206 S.W. 100). Appellees, Marshall Mills and others, thereupon obtained writ of error from the Supreme Court. The case was by that court referred to the Commission of Appeals, Section B., by whom an opinion was pronounced recommending reversing the judgment on the ground of error in rendering the judgment in favor of appellant, instead of remanding the case, and this was at first made the judgment of the Supreme Court ( 228 S.W. 919). On motion for rehearing this order was so modified as to remand the case to the Court of Civil Appeals for further consideration, that opinion only being here published.

We think the contrary of the finding conclusively appeared from the testimony. Therefore the judgment will be reversed, and judgment admitting the will to probate will be rendered here. Mills v. Mills (Tex.Civ.App.) 206 S.W. 100.

We do not think the testimony in this case justifies even a suspicion that either Charles P. or Miss Nellie Macgill exercised any undue influence in procuring the execution of Mrs. Rosenberg's will. Jones v. Milam, 164 S.W. 859; Beyer v. Le Fevre, 186 U.S. 114, 22 Sup.Ct. 765, 46 L.Ed. 1080; Simon v. Middleton, 51 Tex. Civ. App. 531, 112 S.W. 441; Mills v. Mills, 206 S.W. 100. The right of a testator to dispose of his estate in a manner consonant with his own conception of obligation and duty and to follow the dictates of his own heart in bestowing his bounty ought not to be interfered with on the ground that he was unduly influenced in making his bequest, except upon evidence reasonably sufficient to justify the conclusion that the testator's expression of his desires as to the disposition of his property was not the expression of his own free will but the will of another wrongfully imposed upon him.

We conclude that the evidence fails to support the verdict and judgment on the necessary issues of the defendants' negligence. Joske v. Irvine, 91 Tex. 574, 44 S. w. 1059; Texas Loan Agency v. Fleming, 92 Tex. 458, 49 S.W. 1039, 44 L.R.A. 279; First State Bank v. Jones, 107 Tex. 623, 183 S.W. 874; Southern Kansas Ry. Co. v. Shinn, 207 S.W. 87; Freeman v. Huffman, 206 S.W. 819; Mills v. Mills, 206 S.W. 100;, St. L. S. F. Ry. Co. v. West, 174 S.W. 287; Bock v. Fellan, 173 S.W. 582; McKinney Ice Co. v. Montgomery, 176 S.W. 767; Cobb v. Rodriguez, 209 S.W. 196. There yet remains for disposition, however, the question arising by reason of the fact that the plaintiff was shown to have received compensation for his injuries from the Southern Surety Company.