Order Of Probate Court

Upheld By Decision Filed

By Judge Olsen.

——–

FRAUD AND UNDUE

INFLUENCE UNPROVEN

——–

Appointment Of Executor.

——–

By his order made and filed on the 25th day of July, Judge Olsen upholds the order of the Probate Court of Brown County, dated January 2, 1925 admitting to probate the last will and testament of Carl Nagel, deceased, and appointing Harold Nagel as executor under said will. The case was duly tried before the court without a jury on the 15th of July.

Henry Nagel Contests Will.

Henry Nagel, one of the sons, contested the probating of the will and filed the following objections to the admission of the will: That the instrument is not the last will and testament of Carl Nagel: that said instrument was not executed in accordance with the statutes of the state governing the execution of wills; that at the time the instrument was executed Carl Nagel had not sufficient mental capacity to make a will and was not of sound mind;that the execution of the will was procured by fraud, artifice, duress and undue influence exercised ever Carl Nagel by Harold Nagel and others. Objection was also made to the appointment of Harold Nagel, as executor, on the ground that he was not a fit and proper person to act as such.

Will Stands, Court Orders.

The Court finds from the evidence that Carl Nagel was of sound mind and had mental capacity to make a will; that the will was made in writing and executed as required by the laws on the stat; that the execution of the will was not procured by any fraud, duress, artifice or undue influence and that Harold Nagel in a proper and suitable person to be appointed executor under the will.

The Court orders that the order of the Probate Court admitting the will to probate stand; that the order appointing Harold Nagel as executor be affirmed and that Henry Nagel, the appellant pay the costs and disbursements incurred in district court.

No Fraud or Undue Influence.

In a memorandum, Judge Olsen says that he has given careful consideration to all the evidence and the arguments presented; to the situation and the circumstances surrounding the testator and the parties; to the different wills and instruments made; to the due observance of the witnesses and the weighing of their testimony and the proper inferences to be drawn from th e evidence and that it is his conclusion that upon the main issue, that of undue influence presented to the case, there was no fraud of undue influence practiced.

A stay of 40 days was granted and there is a possibility that the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

New Ulm Review,

July 29, 1925

————————