TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Will of Nicholson

In Re Will of H. A. Nicholson.

In re Will of Nicholson, 167 S.E. 820 (N.C. 1933)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 22, 1933
Judges
Stacy
Citations
167 S.E. 820204 N.C. 2231933 N.C. LEXIS 366

Opinion of the Court — Stacy

*224 Stacy, O. J.

Propounders contend that under S. v. Hauser, 202 N. C., 738 , 164 S. E., 457 , S. v. Journegan, 185 N. C., 700 , 117 S. E., 27 , In re Peterson, 136 N. C., 13 , 48 S. E., 561 , Crowell v. Kirk, 14 N. C., 355 , and other decisions to like effect, the evidence of Mrs. Nicholson invaded the province of the jury, and, for this reason, should have been excluded.

In reply, the caveators say the answer of the witness, even if somewhat objectionable, cannot be held for reversible error when taken in connection with the question propounded and the whole record.

In re Will of Creecy, 190 N. C., 301 , 129 S. E., 822 ;

In re Brooch's Will, 172 N. C., 520 , 90 S. E., 681 . This was the view of the trial court, and we are disposed to uphold the ruling.

Whitaker v. Hamilton, 126 N. C., 465 , 35 S. E., 815 .

No error.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 8

DepthCaseCited by
Whitaker v. Hamilton, 35 S.E. 815 (N.C. 1900) 25
In re Will of Broach, 90 S.E. 681 (N.C. 1916) 21
In re Peterson, 48 S.E. 561 (N.C. 1904) 17
State v. Journegan, 117 S.E. 87 (N.C. 1923) 11
State v. Hauser, 164 S.E. 114 (N.C. 1932) 10
In re Creecy, 129 S.E. 822 (N.C. 1925) 9
Crowell v. Kirk, 14 N.C. 355 (1832) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list