Caldwell v. Anderson

• Citation: 104 Pa. 199
• Parties: Caldwell <I>versus</I> Anderson.
• Decision Date: 07 January 1884
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

104 Pa. 199

Caldwell versus Anderson.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

October 5, 1883.

January 7, 1884.

October 5th 1883.

Before MERCUR, C. J., GORDON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT and GREEN, JJ. PAXSON and CLARK, JJ., absent

ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland county: Of October and November Term 1883, No. 31.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Moorhead and Head, (J. J. Johnston with them), for the plaintiffs in error.—We contend that the error which pervaded the trial was, that the court refused to recognize that the facts of this case brought it within the rule of Boyd v. Boyd, and subsequent cases. Although it had been established by the examination of the witnesses to the execution of the will, that the testatrix was eighty years of age, infirm of body and of mind, illiterate, and at the time this alleged will was made was suffering intensely in the grasp of a malady which culminated in her death within a few days; that the scrivener, first, and he who was present at the preparation of the instrument, next, were the chief beneficiaries under it; yet, instead of requiring the affirmative proof necessary to make out the case demanded by law, it was held that a prima facie case was established by the simple production of the paper and testimony of the subscribing witnesses.

A. M. Brown and H. P. Laird (W. H. Klingensmith with them), for the defendants in error.

Mr. Justice GORDON delivered the opinion of the court, January 7th 1884.

The counsel for the plaintiffs in error make a mistake when they attempt to adapt the facts of the case in hand to the legal principles announced in Boyd v. Boyd, 16 P. F. S. 283, and Cuthbertson's Appeal, 1 Out. 163. The first, second, third and fourth points of the contestants, are little more than a re-statement of the doctrine of these cases, and counsel thinking they have presented a similar array of facts find fault with the court below for not affirming distinctly and without qualification those points.

The law as contained in those cases may be summarized as follows: Where the testator is shown to be of weak mind, without regard to the cause or causes from which that weakness has arisen, though it be not sufficient in itself to wholly destroy testamentary capacity, and the person by whom, or under whose advice, the will has been written, being a stranger to the testator's blood, receives a legacy or bequest, large as compared to the testator's estate, the burden of proof shifts from the contestants to the proponent of the will. In such case not only must testamentary capacity be affirmatively proved, but it must also be shown that the testator acted with a full knowledge of the value of his estate.

According to this rule, it lay with the contestants, in the first place, to prove that in the testatrix there was some mental weakness, in consequence of which she was in a condition to be imposed upon. For that, a person of thoroughly sound mind, whether old or young, may dispose of his property as he pleases, and call upon whom he will to act as his scribe and counsellor, cannot be doubted. But an examination of the evidence, produced on part of the contestants, does not satisfy us that they have made out such a case as in necessary to shift the burthen of proof. It is true that some of their witnesses insist that Mrs. Furry was not of sound mind, but when we come to analyze their testimony we find that they have substituted the trouble and anxiety resulting from the necessity she was under of selling her personal property and breaking up housekeeping for imbecility of mind. For instance, Miss Annie Johnston says she had not been in her right mind for a week before the sale. But clearly, this was a mistake, for from all the evidence, a week before the sale, she was not only mentally but bodily sound; it is therefore, obvious, that here mental anxiety is put for mental unsoundness. So, also, Miss Mary Anderson testifies that she was not of sound mind, not only on, but before, the day of sale, "she was troubled." Again, "this lady was not crazy, but she was not in her sound mind all the time. She was flighty; I did not say she was insane. She was a woman of sound mind, of course, before this trouble was;" and so on.

On the other hand, Miss Kate Wyland, who was with Mrs. Furry on the Thursday and Friday preceding the Sunday on which the will was executed, observed nothing...