Mitchell v. Mitchell (In re Mitchell's Estate)

• Citation: 43 Minn. 73,44 N.W. 885
• Parties: IN RE MITCHELL'S ESTATE. MITCHELL v MITCHELL ET AL.
• Decision Date: 27 February 1890
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

43 Minn. 73

44 N.W. 885

IN RE MITCHELL'S ESTATE.

MITCHELLvMITCHELL ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 27, 1890.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. In determining the question of undue influence upon the mind of a testator in disposing of his property by will, the frame of the will and the nature of the testamentary dispositions are in themselves important evidence.

2. A testator may be affected by his prejudices and predilections arising from his associations and external influences, but, if he is of sufficient testamentary capacity, he may nevertheless dispose of his property as he pleases by will, if it be his own voluntary act.

3. To constitute undue influence, the testator must be so controlled by persuasion, pressure, or fraudulent contrivance that he is not left to act intelligently and voluntarily, but becomes subject to the will or purposes of others.

4. Evidence held sufficient to support the findings of the trial court.

Appeal from district court, Stearns county; SEARLE, Judge.

W. D. Bruckart, Taylor & Calhoun, and H. C. Robertson, for appellant.

O. W. Baldwin and Reynolds & Stewart, for respondents.

VANDERBURGH, J.

The will of James S. Mitchell, deceased, was contested in the probate court by his wife, Margaret Mitchell, on the grounds that it was not lawfully executed; that the testator was not of sound and disposing mind and memory; and that “he signed the same under duress, menace, undue influence, and fraud.” From the decree of the probate court establishing the will, and admitting it to probate, the contestant appealed to the district court of Stearns county, where the case was duly tried by the court, no issues having been specially framed for a jury, in pursuance of the statute. Upon the trial of the case in the district court, the issues were determined in favor of the proponents, and the contestant appeals. We have carefully examined the record in the case, and are of the opinion that the findings of the court are abundantly supported by the evidence, and that there is no ground for a reversal of the order denying a new trial. The findings of fact are sufficient to cover all the points upon which the will was contested, unless a more specific finding was necessary upon the issue of fraud; but there was no evidence tending to prove fraud, unless as appearing in the evidence relied on to prove undue influence. So that the findings as made are sufficient, for the purposes of this appeal, to protect the rights of the contestant; and all the evidence in the case tending to show any attempt on the part of relatives or others to control the testamentary disposition of his property by the decedent may properly be considered upon the issue of undue influence. The deceased was an invalid, and the subject of medical treatment for a considerable time before his death, and was nervous and irritable in consequence of his sickness; but the evidence leaves no reasonable doubt of his sanity or testamentary capacity when he executed his will. Indeed, the full, intelligent, and apparently candid statements appearing in the testimony of the witnesses to the will, and the attorney who drafted it, as well as of the physicians who attended him, is very persuasive...