Cited by

In re Nelson’s Will, 39 Minn. 204 , ; Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , ; In re Estate of Habhegger v. Habhegger, 154 Minn. 145 , ; Rochester Loan & Trust Co. v. Pett, 159 Minn. 341 , ; Dyste v. Farmers & Mechanics Sav.

son, 176 Minn. 360, 365 , , 679: “* * * It is necessary that the circumstances relied on to show undue influence be such as ‘taken all together, point unmistakably to the fact that the mind of the testator was subjected to that of some other person, so that the will is that of the latter, and not of the former; mere ground of conjecture or guess is not enough.’ In re Will of Nelson, 39 Minn. 204, 206 , [144].” Again, in In re Estate of Mollan, 181 Minn. 217, 219 , , this court held: “The evidenc

“The circumstances relied on to show it must be such as, taken all together, point unmistakably to the fact that the mind of the testator was subjected to that of some other person, so that the will is that of the latter, and not of the former; mere ground of conjecture or guess is not enough.” In re Will of Nelson, 39 Minn. 204, 206 , , 144; In re Estate of Jenks, 164 Minn. 377, 383 , .

In re Will of Nelson, 39 Minn. 204 , 39 N.W.

In re Nelson’s Will, 39 Minn. 204, 206 , ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, supra, at p. 76 (N. W. p. 885); Schmidt v. Schmidt, 47 Minn. 451, 457 , ; Tyner v. Varien, supra, at p. 183 (N. W. p. 898); Howard v. Farr, 115 Minn. 86, 92 , ; In re Estate of Jenks, supra, at p. 383 (N. W. p. 271).

In re Nelson's Will, 39 Minn. 204 , 206 , 39 N.W.

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.

In re Nelson’s Will, 39 Minn. 204 , ; In re Hess’ Will, 48 Minn. 504 , , 31 A. S. R. 665; In re Estate of Jenks, 164 Minn. 377 , ; 6 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

It is necessary that the circumstances relied on to show undue influence be such as “taken all together, point unmistakably to the fact that the mind of the testator was subjected to that of some other person, so that the will is that of the latter, and not of the former; mere ground of conjecture or guess is not enough.” In re Will of Nelson, 39 Minn. 204, 206 , .

Matter of Will of Nelson, 39 Minn. 204 , ; Woodville v. Morrill, 130 Minn. 92 , .

In In re Nelson’s Will, 39 Minn. 204 , , approval was given to the definition of undue influence quoted in Conley v. Nailor, 118 U. S. 127 , 6 Sup.

He must be able to understand and carry in his mind in a general way the nature and situation of his property, and his relations to those who would naturally have some claim to his remembrance.” See in re Nelson’s Will, 39 Minn. 204 , ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 43 Minn. 73 , ; Hammond v. Dike, 42 Minn. 273 , , 18 Am.

But the circumstances relied on to show it must be such as, taken all together, point unmistakably to the fact that the mind of the testator was subjected to that of some other person, so that the will is that of the latter, and not of the former; mere ground of conjecture or guess is not enorrgh.” In re Nelson’s Will, 39 Minn. 204, 206 , , 144.

Mitchell v. Mitchell, 43 Minn. 73 , ; In re Nelson’s Will, 39 Minn. 204 , ; Schmidt v. Schmidt, 47 Minn. 451 , ; In re Hess’ Will, 48 Minn. 504 , , 31 Am.

In re Nelson’s Will, 39 Minn. 204 , .

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.

Nelson’s Will, 39 Minn. 204 , ( 39 N. W. Rep.