In re Will of Lawrence Convey
Decision Date | 25 October 1879 |
Citation | 2 N.W. 1084,52 Iowa 197 |
Parties | IN THE MATTER OF THE WILL OF LAWRENCE CONVEY |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from the Keokuk Circuit Court.
THIS was a proceeding for the probate of a will. Lincoln Convey son of the decedent, contested the sufficiency of the will on the ground that the instrument was not executed by Lawrence Convey; that he was of unsound mind, was under the influence of intoxicating liquors, and his signature was procured through duress and undue influence. The cause was tried to a jury, and a verdict found against the contestant and the will was admitted to probate. The contestant appeals.
AFFIRMED.
Mackey, Harned & Fonda, for appellant.
Woodin & McJunkin and Sampson & Brown, for appellee.
I. The will in question disposes of all the property of the decedent, without making any provision for the contestant, a minor son, further than it bequeaths him a silver watch, or in case of its loss, thirty dollars. The other beneficiaries of the will were other children and the mother of the deceased. There was evidence tending to show that the deceased, at the time the will is alleged to have been executed, was of unsound mind, that he was in the last stage of consumption, and was under the influence of intoxicating liquors, which he used as a remedy, or rather as a stimulant to prolong his life. The witnesses to the will were not present when the testator subscribed the instrument.
II. Upon the issue involving the fact of the due execution of the will, the court gave the jury the following instructions:
'The said will was signed, and at the request of the testator we signed the same as witnesses, in his presence and in the presence of each other.'
"Now, if you find from the evidence that this attestation clause was read in the presence of the testator and the witnesses at the time they signed the same, and was understood by the testator, this is sufficient presumptive proof, not only of publication, but also that the witnesses signed at his request."
These instructions are made the subject of objections, which we will proceed to consider.
III. It is first insisted that the use of the word onus in the fourth instruction is erroneous, because it is not known to our language, and, therefore, it is to be presumed that it was not understood by the jurors. The objection is answered by the consideration, that the word, though Latin, is incorporated into our language.
IV. The other objections to the instruction may be answered together. The statute does not require that the witnesses shall see the testator subscribe the will. Code, section 2326. If the signature be adopted or acknowledged in the presence of the witness it is sufficient. Hall v. Hall, 17 Pick. 373; Dewey v. Dewey, 1 Met. 349; Butler v. Benson, 1 Barb. 526; Denton v. Franklin, 48 Ky. 28, 9 B. Mon. 28.
V. The fourth instruction is assailed on the ground that it holds the formal execution of the will, the subscribing thereof may be shown by testimony other than that of the subscribing witnesses. This instruction, considered in connection with the fifth and sixth, is evidently not intended to express the thought that the testimony of the subscribing witnesses may be dispensed with, or that the will may be proved without calling them. It expresses the idea that the fact of the testator subscribing the will, the formal execution, may be shown by testimony other than that of the subscribing witnesses. Such evidence, however, will not, under the instructions, dispense with the necessity of proof that the signature was...
To continue reading
Request your trial