This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Probate of will was denied based on the jury finding incompetence and undue influence. Evidence was presented from medical testimony to prove that Kumstar was competent. The only evidence to claim that Kumstar was incompetent was from the face of the will which bequeathed property to a brother who had been deceased for some time and that Kumstar had omitted small bequests as previously promised from the will. The jury found incompetence. The proponent appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that the evidence was sufficient to raise the issue of incompetence and undue influence. The proponent appealed again.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.