US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

RAUB V. CARPENTER, 187 U. S. 159 (1902)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 187 U. S. 159 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Raub v. Carpenter, 187 U.S. 159 (1902)

Raub v. Carpenter

No. 64

Argued November 3-4, 1902

Decided December 1, 1902

187 U.S. 159


At a special term for orphans' court business, the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia admitted a will and codicil to probate, to which the plaintiffs in error (caveators below) filed their caveat; issues as to mental capacity, fraud, coercion and undue influence were framed for trial by jury; on the trial, a witness, who was a physician and a relative of deceased, after testifying in regard to certain facts as to health, actions of deceased, cause of death and results of an autopsy, was asked,

"Doctor, have you formed any opinion from your uncle's general condition of health and the conditions disclosed by his brain at this investigation, and from all you know about him yourself, what his condition of mind was?"

The trial court sustained the objection taken by the caveators to the words in italics on the ground that no sufficient basis had been laid for that portion of the evidence, and that the facts relied upon in this particular should be first adduced. Held that the exclusion was not error.

After the decree, caveators moved to vacate on the ground that one of the jurors was incompetent propter delictum for service, but the trial court denied the motion, the record stating that the court was of the opinion that at the trial there was no evidence of mental incompetency, fraud, or undue influence. Held that the verdict and judgment were not absolutely void, and that it was within the discretion of the trial court to grant or deny the motion, and as no other verdict could have been rendered consistently with the facts, the presence of the juror objected to could not have operated to the prejudice of the plaintiffs in error, and as there was nothing to show that injustice was done to them, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Wassum v. Feeney, 121 Mass. 93, cited in Kohl v. Lehlback, 160 U. S. 293, 160 U. S. 301, followed, and Garrett v. Weinberg, 54 S.C. 127, distinguished.

The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 187 U. S. 160

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™