Substrate Record: qid 1679

← back to the Substrate Record

qid 1679 · law

Question: A testator died and through his will gave his entire estate to charity, but the gift failed because the will was executed 10 days prior to the testator's death. A man then filed a claim against the estate, alleging that he was the son and heir of the testator. At the trial on the man's claim, the man was unable to produce any proof of a ceremonial marriage, but established the following by undisputed evidence: (a) that his mother and the testator had cohabited for a number of years; and (b) that his mother had predeceased the testator by one day. Assume that this jurisdiction has a relevant Dead Man's Statute in effect. At trial, the man's attorney called a clerk at a winter resort hotel. The clerk testified that the testator and the man's mother had come to the hotel for many years and he often saw the testator sign the hotel register as "Mr. and Mrs. Testator. "The trial court should rule the clerk's testimony

1. inadmissible, under the Dead Man's Statute.
2. inadmissible, because it is a violation of the testator's privacy.
3. admissible as a pedigree exception to the hearsay rule.
4. admissible, as it falls under the exception to the hearsay rule for statements of personal or family history.
5. admissible, because it provides evidence of the couple's public recognition as husband and wife.
6. inadmissible, because the clerk's testimony is not the best evidence.
7. inadmissible, because the clerk's testimony is considered hearsay.
8. admissible, as it provides evidence of a common law marriage.
9. admissible, because the clerk had personal knowledge of the matter.
10. inadmissible, as the hotel register is not a legal document establishing marriage.

Our answer: I. admissible, because the clerk had personal knowledge of the matter. Source quote machine-checked (at mint)

A machine check confirms the quoted words appear at the source. A person has not yet reviewed these. EARN MARKS as a Human Reviewer