Cited by

Prescott v. Johnson, 91 Minn. 273, 275 , ; Storer’s Will, 28 Minn. 9 , .

In re Estate of Mazanec, supra; In re Storer’s Will, 28 Minn. 9 , ; In re Estate of Jernberg, 153 Minn. 458 , ; In re Estate of Simmons, 156 Minn. 144 , .

In re Estate of Osbon, 205 Minn. 419 , ; In re Will of Storer, 28 Minn. 9 , ; 57 Am.

306 ; In re Will of Storer, 28 Minn. 9 , 8 N.W.

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 , .

In re Storer's Will, 28 Minn. 9 , 11 , 8 N.W.

In this situation of the pleadings and ewidence it is clear that a cause of action was not established, and the trial court rightly dismissed the action.” To the same effect is the holding of the court in In re Will of Storer, 28 Minn. 9 , .

In re Will of Storer, 28 Minn. 9 , ; In re Will of Nelson, 39 Minn. 204 , ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 43 Minn. 73 , ; Howard v. Farr, 115 Minn. 86 , ; 6 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

As said in Re Storer’s Will, 28 Minn. 9 , : “Any man of sufficient capacity, where his power to dispose of his property is not limited by statute, has a right, in disposing of it by will, to use his own judgment and consult his own preferences, without regard to how such disposition may be approved or disapproved by others.” The testator having

In re Storer’s Will, 28 Minn. 9 , ; Buck v. Buck, 126 Minn. 275 , .

In re Storer’s Will, 28 Minn. 9 , 8 N W. 827; Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , 103 N W. 502; Naeseth v. Hommedal, 109 Minn. 153 , ; Buck v. Buck, 122 Minn. 463 , .

■ We think, however, that the trial court may, in its discretion, as a matter of convenience, permit the hypothesis to be put to the witness, by referring him to the testimony, if he has heard it, instead of requiring the counsel to recapitulate it.” This rule was approved in State v. Lautenschlager, 22 Minn. 514 , Storer’s Will, 28 Minn. 9 , , and Jones v. Chicago, St.

Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 164 ; In re Will of Storer, 28 Minn. 9 , ; Peterson v. Chicago, M. & St.

In re Storer’s Will, 28 Minn. 9 , ; In re Nelson’s Will, 39 Minn. 204 , ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, supra; Schmidt v. Schmidt, 47 Minn. 451 , ; In re Hess’ Will, 48 Minn. 504 , , 31 Am.

502 ; Blake v. Rourke, 74 Iowa, 519 , ; In re Storer’s Will, 28 Minn 9, 11, .

That being so, it comes -within *209 the principle affirmed in'the case of Storer’s Will, 28 Minn. 9 , ( 8 N. W. Rep.