
    [L. A. No. 5587.
    Department Two.
    November 18, 1918.]
    In the Matter of the Estate of MARY E. STREET, Deceased. WEBSTER E. STREET et al., Contestants and Appellant, v. JULIA STREET UPTON, Proponent and Respondent.
    Estate or Deceased Ferson—Will—Alleged Undue Influence.—In a will contest where the testatrix was of sound mind, the question of whether or not the influence brought to bear upon t'he testatrix was so overpowering as to constituid undue influence was peculiarly a question of fact' to be determined by the trial 'court, and the decision of the trial court that there was no undue influence cannot be overturned by the appellate court on the theory that undue influence was established as a matter of law.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 'County. James C. Rives; Judge. Affirmed.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    Bernard Potter, Lynden Bowring, and J. O. Downing, for Appellants.
    N. P. Moerdyke, and James E. Shelton, for Respondent.
   WILBUR, J.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing a will contest and probating a will. ' The will was' contested upon the ground that the same was procured by undue influence. The court tried the case without a jury and determined the issues adversely to the contestant and found that there was no undue influence. Appellant attacks this finding, claiming that under the undisputed evidence there was a clear case of undue influence as a matter of law. With this contention we cannot agree. The testatrix was of sound mind, and the question of whether or not the influence brought to bear upon her was so overpowering as to constitute undue influence was peculiarly a question of fact to be determined by the trial court. No case has been called to our attention in which the judgment of a trial court to the effect that there was no undue influence has been overturned by an appellate court upon the theory that undue influence was established as a matter of law. It is unnecessary to detail the evidence presented for our consideration. It is sufficient to say that there was abundant evidence to justify the conclusion of the trial court that at the time the will was executed the testatrix was not acting under the undue influence of the respondent, Julia Street Upton.

Judgment affirmed.

Melvin, J., and Lorigan, J., concurred.  