McDaniel v. McDaniel

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The record in this case contains two appeals, but as they present the identical question, we will consider them together. It appears that on the 26th of April, 1897, Thomas A. McDaniel filed a petition and caveat to the will of his sister, Mary E. McDaniel, in the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City, asking that her will should not be admitted to probate. First, because at the time of signing the paper the deceased had not the requisite testamentary capacity.

Secondly, because the execution of the alleged will was procured by the undue influence and control of one Mary C. McDaniel. Thirdly, because said will was not attested and executed according to law. On the 4th of May, 1897, Mary C. McDaniel, a sister, filed her answer to the petition and caveat, alleging that the will was executed in due form of law and denying that the execution was procured by any undue influence exercised or practiced by her or any one else upon her mother, and that at the time of its execution the testatrix was of sound and disposing mind, memory and understanding and capable of executing a valid deed or contract. On the 9th of June, 1897, the case was submitted to the Orphans’ Court, and after a hearing of the evidence and an argument decided in favor of the caveatees, and dismissed the petition and caveat.

There was no appeal from the order thus passed, but on the same day, Jane E. McDaniel, another sister of the testatrix, filed a petition and caveat to the same will, alleging practically the same grounds for caveat as had been passed upon by the Court in the previous case, and asking that these ⁶²⁶ issues be