Wilson

This is an appeal by the proponents *265 of the will of Bridget Wilson, deceased, which was probated on May 9, 1893, from a judgment vacating the probate and from an order denying proponent's motion for a new trial.

The said Bridget Wilson died on the fourteenth day of March, 1893, at Los Angeles, California. She left a will, dated February 27, 1893, and executed on that day, and a codicil to said will, executed and dated on the 11th of March, 1893. These two instruments were admitted to probate as constituting the last will and testament of the deceased. She left no children or lineal descendants, and her husband, John Wilson, was her only legal heir. By the instrument of February 27th (which, for convenience, we will call the will, to distinguish it from the codicil), after making bequests and devises to several different parties, and, among others, one thousand dollars to Charles McMahon, she left the residue of her estate to Alicia McMahon, who is the mother of said Charles McMahon. She also in this will gave to her husband fifty dollars per month. By the codicil she revoked the gifts to both said Charles and Alicia McMahon, and left the greater part of her estate undisposed…

concurring. I concur in the foregoing judgment. I also concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice McFarland, saving that I think the amendments to the charge of undue influence whereby such influence is alleged to have been exercised by Michael and Mary Curran did not add a new ground of contest. But, as the opinion points out, the evidence fails to sustain the charge of undue influence against any of the persons named.

A petition for a hearing in Bank having been filed, the following opinion was rendered thereon on the sixteenth day of July, 1897, and the petition was denied. '

The opinion heretofore rendered is modified by striking out that part thereof which declares *281 that the amendment to the written contest which charges undue influence on the part of Michael and Mary Curran was improperly allowed. On further consideration we are of the opinion that the amendment may be considered as only an amplification of the original charge on that subject. This modification, however, does not affect the judgment of reversal, for, as stated in the opinion, there was no sufficient evidence to support “ any finding of undue influence by any person.”

Hearing in Bank denied.