American Bible Soc. v. Price

• Citation: 5 N.E. 126,115 Ill. 623
• Parties: AMERICAN BIBLE SOC. and others v. PRICE.
• Decision Date: 27 January 1886
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

115 Ill. 623

5 N.E. 126

AMERICAN BIBLE SOC. and others

v.PRICE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed January 27, 1886.

Error to St. Clair.

SHELDON, J., dissenting.

Geo. P. Strong, R. A. Halbert and J. B. Hay, for appellants.

G. & G. A. Koerner, for defendant in error.

SCHOLFIELD, J.

Mary Price exhibited her bill in equity in the circuit court of St. Clair county to contest an instrument in writing, probated in the county court of that county on the fourth day of November, A. D. 1878, as the last will and testament of Isaac Foreman, who died on the twenty-eighth day of October, A. D. 1878. She charged in her bill that ‘the said Isaac Foreman, at the time when said pretended will is supposed to have been signed by him, was of a very advanced age, and that his mind had become greatly impaired by age, and that he had become, and was at that time, and had remained to the time of his death, of unsound mind and memory; that owing to his impaired mind, and also to his highly excited feelings in all matters belonging to religious subjects, he was very liable to be unduly influenced by others; and that his mind had been, when not entirely impaired, purposely directed and unduly influenced by designing persons to make such a disposition of his property as he actually did in this instrument, so that, although his mind had become so impaired as to incapacitate him to make a will, this idea of making these bequests to wealthy corporations, and leaving his nearest kin unprovided for, remained fixed in his mind.’ Answer was filed denying these allegations, and insisting that the instrument was the last will and testament of Isaac Foreman, deceased, and that it was valid, and in full force and effect. Replication was filed to the answer, and thereupon an issue at law was made up by the court whether the writing produced was the last will and testament of Isaac Foreman, deceased, and this issue being submitted to a jury, they returned their verdict that the writing produced was not the last will and testament of Isaac Foreman, deceased. Motion in writing was made by the proponents of the will to set aside the verdict, and grant a new trial; but this motion was overruled by the court, and decree was then rendered in conformity with the verdict. The case comes before us on writ of error prosecuted by the proponents of the will.

Isaac Foreman, at the time of his death, was 74 years of age, the owner of a thousand or more acres of valuable land in St. Clair county; and he was also possessed of government bonds and money amounting to something near $40,000. He left a widow, Rebecca, who renounced the provisions of the will, and on only child, the contestant, who was a married woman, and comparatively, if not entirely, destitute of property. By the terms of the instrument contested the testator devised to his wife the homestead occupied by him at the time of his death, consisting of a half section of land, with the exception of one 40-acre tract, which had been laid off into town lots, during her natural life; his household and kitchen furniture, the stock on the farm, and farming utensils. He directed that his executors sell the whole of his estate, real and personal, not devised to his wife, and the tract of land devised to his wife after her death, and convert the same into money. He devised $2,000 to his executors, in trust, to safely loan or invest the same, and pay to the contestant the interest or profits thereof, annually, during her life; and directed that after her death they pay such interest or profits thereof, annually, for the maintenance and education of her child or children, until he, she, or they became of age, and then that they pay the principal sum to him, her, or them. In the event the contestant should die leaving no child or children surviving her, he devised the said sum as he did the balance of his estate. He devised the whole of the balance of his estate, two-thirds to the American Bible Society, and one-third to the Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Numerous witnesses were examined by the respective parties on the trial touching the sanity of the testator at the time of the execution of the will.

The court, on behalf of the contestants, instructed the jury as follows:

‘If the jury believe from the evidence that although Isaac Foreman had sufficient capacity to attend to the ordinary business affairs of life, yet that, with regard to subjects connected with the testamentary disposition and distribution of his property and the natural objects of his bounty, he was insane, and that while laboring under such insanity he made the will in question, and that in making it he was so far influenced or controlled by such insanity as to be unable rationally to comprehend the nature and effect of the provisions of the will, and was thereby led to make the will as he did, then the jury must find the will not to be the will of the said Isaac Foreman. An insane delusion is a fixed and settled belief in facts not existing, which no rational person would believe. Such delusion may sometimes exist as to one or more subjects. And if the jury believe from the evidence in his case that Isaac Foreman was laboring under such insane delusions upon subjects connected with the testamentary disposition of his property and the natural objects of his bounty when he made the will in question, and was thereby rendered incompetent to comprehend rationally the nature and effect of the act, and that but for such delusions he would not have made the will as he did, then the jury should find against the validity of the will.’

And the court, at the instance of the proponents, further instructed the jury as follows:

‘(1) The court instructs the jury that if they believe from the evidence that Isaac Foreman, at the time he signed the paper in dispute, had mind and memory sufficient to transact his ordinary business, and that when he made the will he knew and understood the business he was engaged in, then the jury should find said paper writing to be the will of said Foreman.

‘(2) The court instructs the jury that the owner of property, who has capacity to attend to his ordinary business, has the lawful right to dispose of it, either by deed or by will, as he may choose; and it requires no greater mental capacity to make a valid will than to make a valid deed; and if such an owner chooses to disinherit his heir, or leave his property to some charitable object, he has a legal right to do so, and such disposition of his property is valid, whether it be reasonable or unreasonable, just or unjust. And the reasonableness or justice or propriety of the will are not questions for the jury to pass upon. If, therefore, the jury believe from the evidence that when he executed the paper in dispute, Isaac Foreman had capacity enough to attend to his ordinary business, and to know and understand the business he was engaged in, then he had the right and the capacity to make such a will, and the jury should find the paper in dispute to be the will of said Foreman.

‘The court instructs the jury that even if they find from the evidence that Isaac Foreman had, during some portions of his life, eccentricities or peculiarities, or even an insane delusion, or partial insanity, on the subjects of religion or Masonry or education, or any other subject, yet if they find from the evidence that, at the time he made the will in question, he had sufficient mind and memory to understand his ordinary business, and that he knew and understood the business he was engaged in, and intended to make such a will, the jury should find said will to be the will of said Isaac Foreman.’

The proponents then asked the court to still further instruct the jury as follows, omitting the words in italics; but the court modified the instruction by adding the words in italics, and in this form gave it to the jury:

‘(7) The court instructs the jury that eccentricities or pecuharities or radical or extreme notions or opinions upon religion, colleges, education, or Masonry and secret societies, will not necessarily render a man incapable of making a will; and if the jury find that, in making the will in dispute, Isaac Foreman had sufficient mind and memory to understand the business he was engaged in when he made the will, then the jury should find in favor or of said will, though said Foreman may have had eccentricities and peculiarities, or extreme notions and opinions upon religion, colleges, education, or Masonry or secret societies.’

‘No. 4. The court instructs the jury that, in order to make a valid will, it is only necessary that a man shall have mental capacity sufficient for the transaction of the ordinary affairs of life, and, possessing this, though he may be feeble in mind and body from sickness or old age, he has the legal right to dispose of his property just as he pleases without consulting either his family or his acquaintances. And if the jury believe from the evidence that when he executed the paper in dispute Isaac Foreman knew what he was doing, and executed it as his will, understanding its nature and effect

, and that at the time he had sufficient mind and memory to transact his ordinary business, such as buying or selling or renting property, or collecting or paying out money or settling accounts, then the jury should find the paper in dispute to be the last will and testament of said Isaac Foreman.’

The proponents also further asked the court to instruct the jury as follows:

‘The court instrcuts the jury that insanity is a disease of the brain, affecting the mind to such an extent as to destroy a man's capacity to attend to his ordinary business, or to know and understand the business he was engaged in when making a will. And unless the jury find from the evidence that Mr. Foreman's brain was diseased to such an extent that he did not have mind and memory sufficient to enable him to transact his ordinary business, such as renting his...