Citation network
Throckmorton Vs. Holt
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 26, 1901
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 552 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Throckmorton v. HoltSearch
-
U.S. 552 (1901) Throckmorton v. HoltSearch
-
that such direction cures any error which may have been committed by its introduction. Pennsylvania Coal Company v. RoySearch
-
in that case, the general objection may avail on appeal or writ of error. This was stated by Mr. Justice Field in Hopt v. UtahSearch
-
U. S. 430 . And see Waldron v. WaldronSearch
-
a case, therefore, of the introduction of merely irrelevant evidence, such as was stated in Pennsylvania Coal Company v. RoySearch
-
supra, nor like the case of Hopt v. UtahSearch
-
subsequent to the execution of the will, they would be also inadmissible when made prior to its execution. In Stevens v. VancleveSearch
-
made by the sane or insane, because they are in either case unsworn declarations. Thus, it is said in Shailer v. BumsteadSearch
-
were mere hearsay, and could never be explained or contradicted by the person who uttered them. And so, in Gibson v. GibsonSearch
-
declarations as to his affections, which could only be admitted on such an issue. And it was also said in Waterman v. WhitneySearch
-
To the same effect is Boylan v. MeekerSearch
-
worth, although it is admitted that it is a very dangerous kind of evidence. We are familiar with the case of Sugden v. LordSearch
-
remarks of the master of the rolls were adverted to in Page 180 U. S. 577 the subsequent case of Woodward v. GoulstoneSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
states, the character and sufficiency of the evidence to establish a lost will are provided for by statute. Schultz v. SchultzSearch
-
N.Y. 653. The decision in the Sugden case also overrules that of Quick v. QuickSearch
-
declarations of the testator made after its execution, and it also runs counter to the opinion of Lord Campbell in Doe v. PalmerSearch
-
character of the instrument propounded as a will. Although admitting the evidence, yet Sir John Nicholl, in Johnston v. JohnstonSearch
-
Per Tindal, Ch.J., in Exchequer Chamber, 1838, in Marston v. FoxSearch
-
decision might have been the other way. An extreme case may be assumed, such as was put by Mr. Justice Grier in Turner v. HandSearch
-
he at the same time said it must be regarded with very great caution as a dangerous kind of evidence. Turner v. HandSearch
-
over the alleged will of Meeker was conducted in the courts of New Jersey and in the federal court, while Boylan v. MeekerSearch
-
his direction, arises from the appearance of this will when first received by the register of wills. In Hitchings v. WoodSearch
-
defaced and under such circumstances that the fact of revocation might be presumed. It was observed in Johnston v. JohnstonSearch
-
the presumption of revocation arising from the finding of the mutilated will among the effects of the deceased. Lawyer v. SmithSearch
-
Patterson v. HickeySearch
-
Ga. 156. Another case, Burge v. HamiltonSearch
-
the evidence went to prove that two sheets stitched together and found in an envelope were parts of the will. Gould v. LakesSearch
-
of these declarations any more than upon the issue of forgery. As is stated by James, Lord Justice, in Cheese v. LovejoySearch
-
Class A. Boylan v. MeekerSearch
-
Rusling v. RuslingSearch
-
Hayes v. WestSearch
-
Kennedy v. UpshawSearch
-
Mooney v. OlsenSearch
-
Thompson v. UpdegraffSearch
-
Couch v. EasthamSearch
-
Dinges v. BransonSearch
-
Gibson v. GibsonSearch
-
Cawthorn v. HaynesSearch
-
Walton v. KendrickSearch
-
Comstock v. HadlymeSearch
-
Shailer v. BumsteadSearch
-
Lane v. MooreSearch
-
Robinson v. HutchinsonSearch
-
to mental capacity, the testatrix being greatly broken and enfeebled in mind and capacity and of advanced age, Jackson v. KniffenSearch
-
Jackson v. BettsSearch
-
Waterman v. WhitneySearch
-
Johnson v. HicksSearch
-
Marx v. McGlynnSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial