(Filed 8 April, 1959.)
Appeal by caveators from Thompson, Special Judge, October''Civil Term, 1958, of Geeene.
The late George Taylor, a resident of Greene County, died June 7, 1957. The paper writing purporting to be his last will and testament, referred to in the issues, was probated in common - form on June 18, 1957. Under its terms, Annie Taylor, 'widow of George Taylor, was sole beneficiary and executrix. She qualified and acted as executrix.
Annie E. Taylor died January 18, 1958, intestate. Neither George Taylor nor Annie Taylor was survived by linqa'l descendants. A-,ca.-veat was filed February 8, 1958. The caveators are the heirs and next of kin of George Taylor, deceased. The .propounders, are (1) tire Administrator c.t.a.d.b.n. of the Estate of George. Taylor, deceased, (2) the Administrator, of. the. Estate of Annie Taylor,, deceased, and (3) the heirs -and next of kin of Annie Taylor, deceased.'
Issues raised by the. pleadings were submitted to ¡and -answered by the jury, to wit: “1. Was the paper writing dated April 29, 1957, and offered for probate as the last will and testament of George Taylor, deceased, signed and executed according, to law? ANSWER: Yes. .2. If so, did the said George Taylor, deceased, on. April 29, 1957, have *98sufficient mental capacity to make and execute a valid Last Will and Testament? ANSWER: Yes. 3. If so, was the execution of the said Last Will and Testament procured by undue influence, as alleged in the Caveat? ANSWER: No. 4. Is the paper writing, and every part and clause thereof, the Last Will and Testament of George Taylor, deceased? ANSWER: Yes.”
Thereupon, the court adjudged .that said paper writing and every part and clause thereof is the last will ‘and testament of George Taylor, deceased, andi taxed the costs, including allowances to counsel for both propounders and caveators, against the estate of George Taylor, deceased.
The caveators excepted and appealed.
Jones, Reed & Griffin for caveators, appellants.
Lewis & Rouse for propounders, appellees.
Per CüRiam.
The evidence offeréd by the respective interested parties was in sharp, conflict. The issues, submitted under instructions in substantial accord with well settled legal principles, were resolved in favor of the propounded. We have carefully considered each of caveators’ forty .assignments of error. Suffice to say, none discloses error deemed sufficiently prejudicial to caveators to warrant a new trial.
No error.