Love v. Love

Parke, J., filed the following dissenting opinion: It will serve no useful purpose for the writer of this dissent to make an analysis of the testimony on the record, so conclusions will be stated. The only witness who expressed an opinion that the testatrix was incompetent at the time she made the will was the family doctor, whose opinion was shown by Ms testimony in chief and by his cross-examination not- to have been based upon any evidence of mental incapacity and, consequently, without any probative force. His ⁴⁸⁶ testimony, therefore, was insufficient to carry the case to the • jury, and, in the judgment of the writer, there was no legally sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found for the caveators on the issue of either mental capacity or undue influence. Donnelly v. Donnelly, 156 Md. 81, 84, 85 ; Horner v. Buckingham, 103 Md. 450, 453, 454 ; Berry v. Safe Deposit Company, 96 Md. 60, 61 .