Berberet v. Berberet
Citation | 33 S.W. 61,131 Mo. 399 |
Parties | BERBERET v. BERBERET et al. |
Decision Date | 03 December 1895 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from circuit court, Knox county; Benjamin E. Turner, Judge.
Action by George W. Berberet against Enos B. Berberet and others to set aside a will. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendants appeal. Reversed.
This is a suit to set aside the will of Eve Catharine Berberet, late of Knox county. For grounds for setting aside the will the petition alleges: (1) That the instrument of writing admitted to probate is not the last will of the deceased, Eve Catharine Berberet, for the reason that it is not signed, published, and declared by two attesting witnesses, upon its face or anywhere upon it, in writing, to be such will, and that it is not executed and attested by at least two witnesses, according to law. (2) That any or all proof to show that the will was signed, attested, published, and declared in the presence of at least two attesting witnesses, and that they, at her request and in her presence, subscribed said writing as such witnesses, and intended so to do at the time, and that the said deceased was then of sound and disposing mind, was and is all within the statute of frauds and purjuries, for the reason that it is not stated, in whole or in part, upon or in said writing. (3) That said writing was not understood by the deceased, that its provisions or terms were not of her framing or choosing, and that it was never explained or understood by her, and that she never so published or declared it to two or more attesting witnesses, etc. (4) That the said instrument of writing, purporting to be the will of the deceased, is in the handwriting of the executor therein appointed, who is alleged to be the principal devisee under its terms; that said writing was composed and framed by him, and the signature of said deceased procured thereto when she did not understand it, by reason of his undue influence over her. The petition then concludes with the usual prayer, asking to have the writing declared to be not the last will of the deceased, Eve Catharine Berberet. The answer of the defendants, after admitting the formal allegations of the petition as to the relation of the parties to the testatrix, denies that the proof necessary to establish said will is or was within the statute of frauds and perjuries, as alleged in the petition; denies that the instrument in question was dictated and framed by the executor therein named; denies that the deceased did not understand the provisions of said instrument; denies that the said executor therein named dictated, advised, or counseled the making of said will; but avers that the executor therein named wrote said will at the request of the deceased, who dictated every clause and provision thereof, that deceased was at the time of sound and disposing mind and that she clearly understood the nature of the business in which she was engaged, and that the instrument of writing in question is the last will and testament of Eve Catharine Berberet, deceased, and that she understood the instrument in all its parts and provisions. A trial was had on the issues thus joined at the June term of the circuit court, which resulted in a verdict for the contestant. Defendants then filed motions for new trial and in arrest, which being overruled, they appealed.
Lafe Dawson and John W. Ennis, for appellants. O. D. Jones, for respondent.
BURGESS, J. (after stating the facts).
The will bears date January 19, 1893, and Mrs. Berberet died the 8th day of February, 1894. She was at the time of her decease about 72 years of age, and was the mother and grandmother of the defendants, her children and grandchildren, 11 in all. The property disposed of by the will was of the value of about $7,000. Her husband died January 8, 1877, leaving an estate worth $20,000, and she and her son Enos were executors of his will, Enos having the principal charge and management of the business. The estate was still unsettled at the time of her death. Enos and Joannah, her daughter, testified that their mother requested him to write the will, and that he came to her house in Edina, where she had been living and keeping house with Joannah, to write it. Enos testified that it was written five or six weeks before it was taken by her to Joseph Hirner, Atlay J. Steffen, and Thomas Burk to get them to sign it as witnesses to its execution. He and Joannah also testified that the will was dictated by their mother, and explained by them to her. It was also shown by Joannah that, three weeks before the will was written, her mother insisted that she should write her will, that she declined to do so, and that she then asked Enos two or three times to write it before he consented. Mrs. Berberet could not read written English, but could printed. She could read written English, and spoke it fluently. The will was written by Enos, and admitted to be in his handwriting. It was signed by Mrs. Berberet in German, and Hirner and Steffen signed it, in her presence and at her request, as witnesses thereto. On behalf of contestant, it was shown that Mrs. Berberet and Enos, as executors of the estate of Enos Berberet, deceased, were entitled to commissions as such executors amounting to about $1,600, which she had given to her said son by her will. Evidence was also introduced tending to show that Enos had influence over his mother in matters of business.
The writing in contest is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial