Page

State v. Metzger, 21 Dec. 72 (10 N. S. 97)

53

State v. Morris, 24 Del. (1 Boyce) 380 [76 Atl. 479]

146

State v. Mosher, 78 la. 321 [43 N. W. 202]

568

State v. O'Brien, 95 O. S. 166

377

State v. Railway, 68 Ohio St. 9 [67 N. E. 93; 64 L. R. A. 405; 96

Am. St. 635]

116

State v. Raine, 49 Ohio St. 580 [31 N. E. 741]
State v. Romaine, 58 Iowa 46, 48 [11 N. W. 721]

257

397

471,6

533

State v. Schaeffer, 96 O. S. 245 [117 N. E. 220]
State v. Stewart, 45 La. Ann. 1164 [14 So. 143]
State v. Stone, 92 Ohio St. 63 [110 N. E. 627]
State v. Todd, 4 Ohio 351

...

State v. Toney, 81 Ohio St. 130 [90 N. E. 142]
State v. Vancak, 90 O. S. 211 [107 N. E. 511]
State v. Young, 77 O. S. 529 [83 N. E. 898]
Steffen v. Supreme Assembly, 130 Wis. 485 [110 N. W. 401].
Steinman, Ex parte, 95 Pa. 220 [4 Am. Rep. 637]

124, 5 323 126, 275

Stenvog v. Transfer Ry. 108 Minn. 199 [121 N. W. 903; 25 L. R.

A, (N. S.) 362; 17 Ann. Cas. 240]

Stephenson v. Hagan, 54 Ky. (15 B. Monroe) 282

Steubenville & W. Trac. Co. v. Brandon, 87 Ohio St. 187 [100 N.
E. 325]

Stevens v. Taylor, 51 Ohio St. 593

56. 476

365

366

86

107

625

92 598

Stevens v. Shannon, 3 Circ. Dec. 386 (6 R. 142)

Stinson's Estate, 228 Pa. 475 [77 Atl. 807; 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1173; 139 Am. St. 1014].

409

Strangward v. American Brass Bedstead Co. 82 O. S. 121 [91 N.

Stunt v. Tube & Steel Co. 12 Circ. Dec. 170 (22 R. 120)

214

Stutz v. Railway, 73 Wis. 147 [40 N. W. 653; 9 Am. St. 769].
Swift & Co. v. Hocking Valley Ry. 93 Ohio St. 104

Thatcher, In re, 83 Ohio St. 246 [93 N. E. 895; 22 Ann. Cas.

810]

88

Thomas v. Ackerman, 12 Circ. Dec. 456 (21 R. 740)
Thompson v. Redington. 92 O. S. 101 [110 N. E. 652]

235

36, 411

Tillinghast, In re, 29 U. S. (4 Pet.) 21 [7 L. Ed. 798]
Timanns v. Drugan, 43 Md. 402

88

625

Tioga Co. v. South Creek (Tp.) 75 Pa. St. 453

397

Tompkins v. Tompkins, 1 Bailey L. (S. C.) 92 [19 Ann. 656]..282, 283 Trippe, Ex parte, 66 Ind. 531

86

Tuttle v. Burgett's Admr. 53 Ohio St. 498, 508 [42 N. E. 427; 30.
L. R. A. 214; 53 Am. St. 649]

578

Tyler's Executors v. Winslow, 15 Ohio St. 649]

578

Uihlein v. Gladeaux, 74 Ohio St. 232 [78 N. E. 363].
U. Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Buxer, 62 Ohio St. 385, 390

130

659

Union Cen. Life Ins. Co. v. Pottker, 33 O. S. 459 [31 Am. Rep. 555]
United States Car Company, In re, 60 N. J. Eq. 514 [43 Atl. Rep.

388

673] .

528

Upson v. Noble, 35 Ohio St. 655

60

Ute Creek Ranch Co. v. McBride, 20 New Mexico 377 [150 Pac.

52].

381

Utermehle v. Norment, 197 U. S. 40 [25 S. Ct. 291]
Van Derby v. Mack, 109 Am. St. 676 [137 Mich. 146; 100 N. W.
278; 66 L. R. A. 437]

Van Vleck, Ex parte, 6 Dec. Re. 636 (7 Am. L. 636; 3 Bull. 763..
Varner v. Varner, 9 Circ. Dec. 273 (16 R. 386)
Wadsworth v. Purdy, 31 O. C. C. 110 (12 N. S. 8)
Wagoner v. Loomis, 37 O. S. 571

Page 355

59

363

564

353

379, 380

Wagner v. Ziegler, 44 O. S. 59 [4 N. E. 705]
Waite v. Frisbie, 45 Minn. 361 [47 N. W. 1069]

284, 352, 452

283

Walesworth's Est. In re, 85 Vt. 322 [82 Atl. 7; 37 L. R. A. (N. S.)

849; 1914C Ann. Cas. 1223]

Walker v. Walker, 14 Ohio 157

Walsh v. Barron, 61 Ohio St. 15 [55 N. E. 164; 76 Am. St. 354]..
Walsh v. Fitchburg Ry., 145 N. Y. 301 [39 N. E. 1068; 27 L. R. A.

58

352

203

724; 45 Am. St. 615]

373

Wall's Case, 107 U. S. 265 [2 S. Ct. 569; 27 L. Ed. 552].
Washington Central Bk. v. Hume, 128 U. S. 195

86

651

Wasson v. Wayne Co. (Comrs.) 49 O. S. 622, 635 [32 N. E. 472; 17
L. R. A. 795] .

378

Watertown Fire Ins. Co. v. Simmons, 131 Mass. 85 [41 Am. Rep. 196]

270

Watrous v. Southworth, 5 Conn. 305

598

Weakley v. Wolf, 148 Ind. 208, 213 [47 N. E. 466]

412

Webb v. Staesel, 80 Ohio St. 122 (17 Dec. 320)

229

Webster v. Dwelling House Ins. Co. 53 O. S. 558, 563 [42 N. E.

546; 30 L. R. A. 719; 53 Am. St. 658]

388

Webster v. Miller, 37 O. C. C. 682 (18 N. S. 272)

Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 [58 L. Ed. 652; 34 Sup.
Ct. 341].

618

Wellston Coal Co v. Paper Co. 57 Ohio St. 182 [48 N. E. 888].
Werner v. Cincinnati, 13-23 O. C. C. 475 (3 N. S. 276)
Wessel v. Timberlake. 95 O. S. 21 [116 N. E. 43]

213

431

333

West v. Citizens Ins. Co. 27 O. S. 1 [22 Am. Rep. 294]
West v. Knoppenberger, 26 O. C. C. 168 (4 N. S. 305)

388

562

67 Am. St. 26]

Weston v. Weston, 38 Ohio St. 473

Western Assurance Co. v. McGlathery, 115 Ala. 213 [22 So. 104;

Wettstein v. Bank, 38 O. C. C. 472, 475 [20 N. S. 201, 204]
Wheeling & L. E. Ry. v. Harvey, 77 O. S. 235 [83 N. E. 66; 19 L.
R. A. (N. S.) 1136; 11 Ann. Cas. 981; 122 Am. St. 503]
319, 369, 374, 490

Whittaker v. Insurance Co. 77 Ohio St. 518 [83 N. E. 899]
Wilber v. Paine, 1 Ohio 251

387

628

398

Wilde v. Ohio Knife Co. 28 Dec. 320 (18 N. S. 373)
Wilder v. Taylor, 87 O. S. 520

Williamson v. Brown, 195 Mo. 313 [93 S. W. 791]

Wingard, Ex parte, 2 Dec. Re. 126 (1 W. L. M. 453)
Zanesville v. Richards. 5 O. S. 589

240

595

490

353

227

52

378

300

305

376, 382

377

Zanesville v. Gas Light Co. 47 O. S. 1 [23 N. E. 56]
Zanesville v. Telegraph & Tel. Co. 64 O. S. 67 [59 N. E. 781; 52

L. R. A. 150; 83 Am. St. 725]

Zangerle v. State, 94 O. S. 453 [115 N. E. 1012]
Zangerle v. Thompson, 95 O. S. 262 [116 N. E. 41]

REPORTS

OF

CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

CIRCUIT And APPEALS COURTS

Of OHIO

WILL-CONTEST.

[Hamilton (1st) Court of Appeals, March 23, 1917.]

Middleton, Walters and Sayre, JJ., of the Fourth District, sitting by designation.

IDA W. GOMIEN, EXTRX., ET AL. V. STANLEY E. WEIDEMER ET AL.

1. Not Scintilla Rule but Evidence to Countervail Prima Facle Case of Probate Necessary on Motion for Verdict by Will Contestees. Where, at the close of the evidence for the contestants in a will case, a motion is interposed to direct a verdict for the contestees, the trial judge is not bound by the scintilla rule, but will determine whether the evidence which has been offered is sufficient to countervail the prima facie case made by the order of probate.

2. Opinions of Witnesses without Supporting Facts not Sufficient to Overcome Prima Facie Case of Probate of Will of Feeble and Aged Woman Suffering Many Physical Ailments.

The opinion of witnesses that the testatrix, a feeble old lady afflicted by a number of physical ailments, was of unsound mind at the time her will was executed is not sufficient to overcome the prima facie case arising from probate, where no facts were given by the witnesses which would support their opinion and it is in evidence that she always inquired about her children and grandchildren and exhibited affection for them and recognized her own afflictions and conversed in an intelli gent manner.

[Syllabus by the court.]

1 O. C. C. Vol. 39.