Library Of Congress
Library Of CongressPublic Domain ArchivePart of PICRYL.com. Not developed or endorsed by the Library of Congress
Affidavit in McDaniel et al. v. Correll et al, [Law papers].

Affidavit in McDaniel et al. v. Correll et al, [Law papers].

 
 
description

Summary

Summary: Sarah Correll, Mary Ann Herrin, and Martha McIntyre, the three married daughters of William McDaniel, and their husbands, sued their brothers, James McDaniel and Joseph McDaniel, and the other heirs of William McDaniel in a chancery action to set aside William McDaniel's will. William McDaniel dictated his will to the attending physician, Dr. Randall, to dispose his real and personal property, valued at $15,000 to $20,000. McDaniel died eleven days later. William McDaniel bequeathed the land to his sons, James McDaniel and Joseph McDaniel, and to his grandsons, William Sutcliff, Rufus McDaniel, and Robert McDaniel. The daughters and the remaining grandchildren were to receive equal shares of the personal property. Correll and others charged that William McDaniel was not mentally competent to dispose of his property, and that his two sons took advantage of their infirm father, plied him with wine, and dictated a will favorable to their interests. The daughters also stated that McDaniel's widow had renounced the will's provisions and had received her dower at an earlier term of court. They claimed that, if competent, their father would have divided the estate equally among his heirs. James McDaniel and others retained Lincoln and Herndon. The jury found for the Correll and others and declared the will void on the grounds of William McDaniel's mental incompetency. McDaniel and others continued to employ Lincoln and Herndon and appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court on the grounds that the non-resident minor defendants were neither properly summoned nor represented in the proceedings. The supreme court reversed and remanded the case. Chief Justice Caton ruled that the lower court had failed to bring all the defendants within its jurisdiction and must serve the non-residents with a summons. The supreme court refused to rule on the will's legality, choosing to leave that issue to another jury. At the trial of the remanded case, the jury found for James McDaniel and others and validated the will.

date_range

Date

01/01/1855
person

Contributors

Conkling, James (Author)
place

Location

create

Source

Library of Congress
copyright

Copyright info

Public Domain