Cited by

In re Storer’s Will, 28 Minn. 9, 11 , ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 43 Minn. 73, 76 , ; In re Hess’ Will, 48 Minn. 504, 512 , , 31 A. S. R. 665; Tyner v. Varien, 97 Minn. 181, 182 , ; In re Estate of Jenks, 164 Minn. 377, 383 , .

665 ; Tyner v. Varien, 97 Minn. 181 , 182 , 106 N.W.

*365 Notwithstanding dicta susceptible of a contrary construction in Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , , and Tyner v. Varien, 97 Minn. 181 , , the burden of proof on the issue of undue influence was with the contestant and remained there to the end.

The following cases illustrate the rule: Farmers W. Assn. v. Montgomery, 92 Minn. 194 , ; Tyner v. Varien, 97 Minn. 181 , ; Rustad v. G. N. Ry.

at its execution was not procured by any undue influence * * * is, as it must be, conceded.” Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , : “But, in connection with sufficient other circumstances, these facts may make out a prima facie case of undue influence, sufficient to cast upon the principal beneficiary the burden of establishing the validity of the will in this respect.” Tyner v. Varien, 97 Minn. 181 , : “Generally the burden of showing that a will was procured by undue influence rests upon those who

Com *60 pare Tyner v. Varien, 97 Minn. 181 , , and cases cited.

Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , ; Tyner v. Varien, 97 Minn. 181 , ; In re Estate of Jernberg, 153 Minn. 458 , .

In Tyner v. Varien, 97 Minn. 181 , , the court uses the language that when the contestants have made a prima facie case, by the production of evidence from which the presumption of undue influence arises, “the burden is then upon the proponents to show that the instrument is the will of the testator.” The court adds, however: “It is not

Tyner v. Varien, 97 Minn. 181, 184 , .

665; Tyner v. Varien, 97 Minn. 181 , ; Buck v. Buck, 122 Minn. 463 , .

665; Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , ; Tyner v. Varien, 97 Minn. 181, 183 , ; Burmeister v. Gust, 117 Minn. 247 , .

Tyner v. Varien, 97 Minn. 181 , ; Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , , and Clarity v. Davis, 92 Minn. 60 , , relate to wills, where, of course, the burden is upon proponent to establish the will by proof that it is the act of a testator who was then capable and competent; but we do not think the effect of the

The case is wholly unlike Tyner v. Varien, 97 Minn. 181 , .