Opinion
November 11, 1965.
January 4, 1966.
Appeals — Review — Fact findings — Will contest.
In this will contest in which the hearing judge found that the evidence was insufficient to show undue influence exerted upon the decedent by any person in a confidential relationship, and such findings were affirmed by the court en banc, it was Held that such findings were conclusive.
Before BELL, C. J., JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.
Appeal, No. 219, Jan. T., 1965, from decree of Orphans' Court of Philadelphia County, No. 415 of 1964, in re estate of Estella D. Mitchell, deceased. Decree affirmed; reargument refused February 23, 1966.
Appeal from probate of will by register of wills. Before LEFEVER, J.
Adjudication filed dismissing appeal, exceptions to adjudication dismissed, and final decree entered. Before KLEIN, P. J., LEFEVER, SAYLOR, SHOYER and BURKE, JJ., opinion per curiam. Exceptants appealed.
Paul Maloney, with him Holbrook M. Bunting, Jr., and Pepper, Hamilton Scheetz, for appellants.
Harry A. Takiff, with him Martin Greitzer, and Takiff and Bolger, for appellees.
In this will contest proponents proved the will and its execution by the necessary subscribing witnesses thereby shifting the burden to the contestants. The hearing judge found that taking as true all of contestants' testimony as to decedent's mental and physical condition, the contestants' case was still insufficient to show undue influence exerted upon the decedent by any person or persons in confidential relationship. These findings of the hearing judge were affirmed by the court en banc and we see no reason why they should be disturbed.
Decree affirmed. Each party to bear own cost.