Young v. Miller

Decision Date29 September 1896
Docket Number17,540
Citation44 N.E. 757,145 Ind. 652
PartiesYoung et al. v. Miller et al
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

From the Montgomery Circuit Court.

Reversed.

Brush & Snyder, Kennedy & Kennedy, and G. F. Harvey, for appellants.

Crane & Anderson, for appellees.

OPINION

Hackney, J.

The appellees sued the appellants to set aside the will of Alfred D. Young, alleging that the testator was of unsound mind and that the will was unduly executed.

Upon the trial, the court charged the jury, among other propositions, as follows: "5. Soundness of mind is presumed to exist in all persons until the contrary is shown and whosoever would set aside a will because of unsoundness of mind of the testator, must prove such unsoundness to exist. Mere weakness of mind is not such unsoundness of mind as will of itself invalidate a will, and a mind that is not capable of making important contracts, or engaging in complex or intricate business matters may nevertheless be competent to make a valid will. What the law requires to make a valid will is, that the testator shall possess mind enough to comprehend the business in which he is engaged, and to know the extent and value of his property and the number and names of the persons who are the natural objects of his bounty; their deserts with reference to their conduct and treatment towards him; to rationally apprehend and consider his relations and natural duty to those who stand nearest to him in blood, and other kindred, and the manner he wishes to distribute his property among them, or to withhold it from them, and that he shall have sufficiently strong and active mind and memory to retain all these facts in his mind long enough to have his will prepared and executed. And in this case, if you find that Alfred D. Young, at the time he executed the will in suit, was possessed of mental faculties to the foregoing extent, then you should find that he was of sound mind, and if not, then you should find that he was of unsound mind.

"9. Under our statute all persons except infants and persons of unsound mind may dispose of their property by will, and the words persons of unsound mind shall be taken to mean any idiot, non compos, lunatic, monomaniac, or distracted person, and thus the term unsound mind includes every species of unsoundness of mind. A monomaniac is a person who is deranged in a single faculty of his mind, or with regard to a particular subject only. And it is a fact that persons possessed of monomania may, and often do, on all subjects foreign to the subject of mania, act rationally and with ordinary prudence and judgment. While therefore, monomania is embraced within our statutory definition of what constitutes unsoundness of mind, yet it does not follow that every one possessed of monomania is incompetent to make a valid will.

"10. In this case therefore, if you find that Alfred D. Young, at the time he executed the contested will, was possessed of monomania, then it will be presumed that he was incompetent to make a valid will, and if it be shown that his mania related to the disposition of his property, or to those who stood in such relation to him as to be the natural objects of his care and bounty, or entered into the execution of his will in any way, then you should find him of unsound mind and return your verdict for the plaintiffs. But, on the other hand, if you find that he was possessed of monomania at the time he executed the contested will, and that the defendants have established, by a clear preponderance of the evidence, that his monomania related to a subject foreign from the disposition of his property and foreign from those who were the natural objects of his care and bounty, and foreign from the subject of his will and from the beneficiaries thereunder, and that at the time of the execution of the will he possessed mind enough to comprehend the business in which he was engaged, to know the extent and value of his property, the number and names of the persons who were the natural objects of his bounty, their needs and deserts with regard to their treatment towards him, and to rationally apprehend his relation to his grandchildren and the manner he wished to distribute his property among them, or withhold it from them, and that he had a sufficiently strong and active mind and memory to retain all these facts in his mind during the preparation and execution of his will, and that his will was in no way affected by his mania, then you should find him of sound mind and return your verdict for the defendants.

"11. A man may have sufficient mind to know and comprehend that he is making his will and thereby disposing of his property, giving it to some of the natural objects of his bounty to the exclusion of others, and have an object in so doing which he fully comprehends, and yet be prompted to so dispose of his property by some form of monomania. And if the monomania affected in any way or entered into the making of the will, such will would be invalid, and should be set aside.

"12. A person of unsound mind is incapable of making a valid will and if you find from the evidence that Alfred D. Young was a person of unsound mind at the time of making his will, it is not necessary for the plaintiffs to show that such unsoundness had anything to do with the manner of disposing of his property. If unsoundness of mind has been proven to your satisfaction it is incumbent upon the defendants to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the unsoundness was of such a character as did not impair the mind of Alfred D. Young to such an extent as to render him incapable of making a will, or that the derangement of his mind in no way affected the disposition of his property...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • Taylor v. McClintock
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • June 22, 1908
    ...cause of their estrangement and of his discrimination against her. The burden was on the appellee. 57 Ark. 402; 78 S.W. 398; 45 A. 727; 145 Ind. 652; 94 Md. 20. The eighth instruction is erroneous, in charging the jury that one can be entirely sound on all subjects, or as to all persons, ex......
  • Buford v. Gruber
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 23, 1909
    ......660; Cutler v. Zollinger, . 117 Mo. 92; Benoist v. Murrin, 58 Mo. 307; Appeal of. Kimberly, 37 L. R. A. 261, 68 Conn. 428; Young v. Miller, 145 Ind. 652; Jones v. Collins, 94 Md. 403; Lee v. Scudder, 31 N.J.Eq. 633; Mullins v. Cottrell, 41 Miss. 291; Edwards v. ......
  • Swygart v. Willard
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 25, 1906
    ...a will, such will would be invalid. This instruction was tacitly admitted to be correct in the case of Young et al. v. Miller et al., 145 Ind. 652, 655, 44 N. E. 757. (156, 157) It is finally insisted that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and is contrary to law. Appellee......
  • Roller v. Kling
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 31, 1898
    ...statements of the law under the decisions of this court in Blough v. Parry, 144 Ind. 463, 40 N. E. 70, and 43 N. E. 560;Young v. Miller, 145 Ind. 652, 44 N. E. 757; and Teegarden v. Lewis, 145 Ind. 98, 40 N. E. 1047, and 44 N. E. 9. If a general, instead of a special, verdict had been retur......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT