Appleby v. Brock
| Decision Date | 31 October 1882 |
| Citation | 76 Mo. 314 |
| Parties | APPLEBY v. BROCK et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Carroll Circuit Court.--HON. E. J. BROADDUS, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Chas. A. Winslow for appellant.
Hale & Eads for respondent.
This is a proceeding, under the statute, to contest the validity of the will of Joel Brock, deceased. An issue was framed as required by the statute, which was by agreement submitted to the court sitting as a jury, the trial of which resulted in a finding and judgment against the validity of the will.
It has been several times decided by this court that proceedings under the statute to contest the validity of a will, are proceedings at law. Lyne v. Marcus, 1 Mo. 410; Trotters v. Winchester, 1 Mo. 414; Swain v. Gilbert, 3 Mo. 347; Young v. Ridenbaugh, 67 Mo. 574. As no exceptions were taken to the admission or rejection of testimony, and no instructions were given or refused in the case before us, the only question left for our consideration is whether there is any testimony to support the finding.
Testimony was introduced by the plaintiffs for the purpose of showing that the will was the result of undue influence, exercised over the mind of the testator, by some of the beneficiaries, and also for the purpose of showing that the testator did not have sufficient mental capacity to make a will.
The will in question was executed on the 18th day of January, 1875, and the testator died in the April following, aged seventy-seven years. The evidence offered to establish undue influence, tended to show that a son of the testator, who was one of the beneficiaries of the will, frequently transacted business for his father, in consequence of the physical infirmities of the latter, and was occasionally consulted by him, and had some influence over him, but it does not tend to show that his influence was an undue influence, or that the will in question was the result of undue influence on the part of any one.
As to the mental capacity of the testator to make a will the testimony is admitted to be conflicting. The weight of evidence is undoubtedly in favor of the mental capacity of the testator, according to the standard established by this court in the case of Brinkman v. Rueggesick, 71 Mo. 553. Several witnesses, however, testified that the testator did not have sufficient mental capacity to make a will. One said he was suffering too much from January 1st, 1875, until his death, to transact any kind of business. Another said, referring to the will, he was not capable of transacting business of that kind. Another, that he did not have sufficient mind to make a will. And a fourth said, “Old man had no mind at all; he was just sitting there.” A physician who saw him a few days after the execution of the will said, he “considered him mentally debilitated; he might have been capable of transacting ordinary business affairs.” An old friend who had known him intimately for seventeen or eighteen years, testified that he called to see him, on the evening of the day on which the will was executed, that his condition that evening was worse, that he was suffering intense pain and did not recognize him, when he, the witness, went up to him. This witness further stated that he thought “he was not capable of transacting business on the evening the will was made,” and that he was not able to manage his affairs after that time.
The appellants contend that the opinions of these witnesses are not shown to be based on any correct understanding of the true criterion of mental capacity to make a will, and that not being qualified as experts, their opinions are insufficient to support the finding of a want of testamentary capacity in the deceased. No objection was made to the introduction in evidence of the opinions of the witnesses, nor were they required by appellants, as they might have been, to state the grounds of their belief.
Besides, it does appear that, with one exception, the witnesses who testified to a want of testamentary capacity, had adequate opportunity of observing and judging of the mental capacity of the deceased. Attesting witnesses have always been permitted to express an opinion as to the sanity of the testator, on the ground that the law has made it their duty to inspect the testator's capacity, and the law presumes they did observe and judge of it, while other witnesses were by some authorities, permitted to speak only as to facts. But as was well observed by Gaston, J., in Clary v. Clary, 2 Iredell 78: “If observation presumed, be a sufficient ground for receiving in evidence the judgment of a witness supposed to be thereupon formed, it is not readily...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Lankford's Estate
...would not reverse the judgment because the jury found against the weight of the evidence. Young v. Ridenbaugh, 67 Mo. 574. And in Appleby v. Brock, 76 Mo. 314, a similar ruling was made, and also it was ruled in that case that this court would examine the record to see if there is any testi......
-
Klaber v. Unity School of Christianity
...Studybaker v. Cofield, 159 Mo. 596; Roby v. Colehour, 135 Ill. 300, 25 N.E. 777; Wightman v. Grand Lodge, 121 Mo. App. 252; Appleby v. Brock, 76 Mo. 314; Hamon v. Hamon, 180 Mo. 685; Moore v. Moore, 67 Mo. 192; State v. Erb, 74 Mo. 199; Byrne v. Byrne, 250 Mo. 632; Mowry v. Norman, 204 Mo. ......
-
Clark v. Commerce Trust Co.
...v. Heinbach, 274 Mo. 301; Denny v. Guyton, 40 S.W. (2d) 562; Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Lathrop, 111 U.S. 612, 28 L. Ed. 536; Appleby v. Brock, 76 Mo. 314; Clinginpeel v. Citizens Trust Co., 240 S.W. 177. (b) There was no error in permitting mental specialist, Dr. Edward T. Gibson, to test......
-
Clark v. Commerce Trust Co.
... ... Heinbach, 274 Mo. 301; Denny v. Guyton, 40 ... S.W.2d 562; Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Lathrop, 111 ... U.S. 612, 28 L.Ed. 536; Appleby v. Brock, 76 Mo ... 314; Clinginpeel v. Citizens Trust Co., 240 S.W ... 177. (b) There was no error in permitting mental specialist, ... Dr ... ...