Bales v. Bales

Decision Date23 February 1914
Citation145 N.W. 673,164 Iowa 257
PartiesBALES ET AL. v. BALES ET AL.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from District Court, Hardin County; R. M. Wright, Judge.

Will contested on the ground that the same was procured by undue influence, and that the testator, at the time of making the will, did not have testamentary capacity. Verdict for proponents. Contestants appeal. Affirmed.E. P. Hudson, of Des Moines, Aymer D. Davis, of Eldora, and E. P. Andrews, of Hampton, for appellants.

Lundy, Wood & Baskerville, of Eldora, and B. P. Birdsall, of Clarion, for appellees.

GAYNOR, J.

On the 12th day of October, 1907, J. H. Bales, resident of Hardin county, executed his last will and testament in which, after providing for the payment of his debts and funeral expenses, appears the following provisions:

“II. I give, grant, bequeath and devise unto my wife, Sarah E. Bales, in lieu of dower, the one-half in value of all the property belonging to my estate, real, personal, and mixed, of which I shall die seised and give unto her the right to select from my estate what particular property shall vest in her by virtue of this bequest.

III. I give and bequeath unto James G. Bales, being the boy raised by me and now a resident of Hardin county, Iowa, the sum of ten thousand dollars and direct that said sum shall draw interest at the rate of four per cent per annum from the time of the admission of this will to probate until the same is paid to the said James G. Bales, and direct that said sum shall be paid out of my estate by my executors within two years from and after the time of the appointment and confirmation of such appointment of my executors, and further that such payment shall be made as soon as the same can be done without embarrassment to the administration of my estate by my executors.

IV. I give, grant and bequeath unto W. J. Murray, of Eldora, Iowa, in trust, as trustee only, the rest and residue of my estate with full authority and power upon the part of the said W. J. Murray to invest and reinvest the said portion of my said estate as he, the said W. J. Murray may think advisable from time to time and shall deem for the benefit of the said trust estate and directthat the said trustee shall, from time to time pay over to my said wife at intervals of not less than one year, the net income derived from the said portion of the said estate during the natural life of the said Sarah E. Bales, and I authorize and empower the said W. J. Murray, if by him deemed to be to the best interest of the said trust estate to make sale of any portion of the said estate which shall come into his possession by virtue of this bequest without first making application for authority therefor to the court.

V. At the time of the death and departure from this life of my wife, Sarah E. Bales, I direct that there shall be paid out of the residue of the said trust estate by my said trustee, W. J. Murray, the sum of five hundred dollars, to Lula S. Trout, daughter of B. B. and Jennie Trout, and one thousand dollars to Henry Bales, my nephew, a son of John L. Bales.

VI. I further direct that after the payment of the said two legacies provided for in the last preceding paragraph of this will that the residue and remainder of said trust estate shall vest as follows: The one-third to become the property of the said James G. Bales referred to in the third paragraph of this will; one-third to my friend W. J. Murray, and the remaining one-third to be equally divided between my two brothers, John L. Bales and W. S. Bales, and in case of death of either of the said John L. Bales or W. S. Bales prior to said distribution, then and in that case, the portion of the estate which should have gone to either of the said parties, John L. Bales or W. S. Bales, shall be paid to the legal heirs of the party whose death has thus occurred prior to such distribution.

VII. Finally I nominate and appoint as executors of this my last will and testament, my wife, Sarah E. Bales, and my friend W. J. Murray, and ask that such nomination be confirmed by the court at the time this instrument is admitted to probate and that the executrix and executor shall not be required to give bonds in excess of the sum of five thousand dollars.”

On the 19th day of December, 1911, the said J. H. Bales departed this life. On the 21st day of December, 1911, the foregoing instrument was filed with the clerk of the district court of Hardin county as the last will and testament of the said Bales. On the 19th day of January, 1912, the appellants herein, W. S. Bales and J. L. Bales, brothers of the testator, filed written objections to the probate of the will, urging: First. That the said J. H. Bales was not, at the time of the execution of the said instrument, of sound and disposing mind, but was incapable of making a will. Second. That the said will was procured and executed by fraud, duress, and undue influence exercised over him by Sarah C. Bales, James C. Bales, and W. J. Murray. A hearing was had on the issue at the March term of the district court of Hardin county. At the conclusion of all the testimony, on the motion of proponents, the jury was instructed to bring in a verdict in favor of proponents, and against contestants, and thereupon, an order was made by the court admitting said will to probate, and the same was duly probated as the last will and testament of the said Bales. From this order, contestants W. S. Bales and J. L. Bales appeal.

There was no evidence of any undue influence, exercised over the testator by the parties charged, which induced or provoked, or secured in any way, the making of the will in question, or that can be said to have controlled, or even directed, the mind of the testator in the disposition of his property as therein set out. We are therefore only concerned with the first proposition presented by contestants, to wit, Was J. H. Bales, at the time of the execution of the instrument, of sound and disposing mind and capable of making a will?

[1] The law, as uniformly announced by this court is that a person is of sound mind who has full, intelligent knowledge of the act he is engaged in, a full knowledge of the property he possesses, an intelligent perception and understanding of the disposition he desires to make of it, and of the persons he desires should be recipients of his bounty, and the capacity to recollect and comprehend the nature of the claims of those who are excluded from participating in his bounty; but it is not necessary that he should have sufficient capacity to make contracts and do business generally, nor to engage in complex or intricate matters. In other words, it is said a party is competent to make a valid will who possesses a mind capable of exercising judgment, reason, and deliberation, and capable of weighing the consequences of his will to a reasonable degree, and the effect of it upon his estate and family.

[2] It is proper, therefore, in determining the question herein under consideration, for us to examine somewhat into the relationship of the parties who are the subjects of his bounty, and to see whether or not therein lies any evidence of indifference to, or forgetfulness of, those who would naturally come into the mind of a reasonable and rational person as the ones fairly entitled to recognition and thoughtful consideration in making a disposition of his property. Upon this question see Stutsman v. Sharpless, 125 Iowa, 335, 101 N. W. 105;In re Will Wharton, 132 Iowa, 714, 109 N. W. 492;Hardenburg v. Hardenburg, 133 Iowa, 1, 109 N. W. 1014.

It appears from the record that J. H. Bales had no children. The record discloses that he entertained a high regard and a tender love for his wife; that he often, during his lifetime, spoke of her as having been of great assistance to him in securing his fortune, and that he intended to make ample provision for her. In the will this thought is exemplified and emphasized, and, as a good man should, he has made ample provision for her future. In this, there is no evidence of forgetfulness, nor indifference to the tie which had bound him to her during the long years of their married life. It would seem to us to be an intelligent recognition and fulfillment of an intent long entertained by him and faithfully executed.

The boy, James G. Bales, seems to have been next in his consideration. To him a large bequest was made, and why? The record shows that this boy, commonly called Jimmie, was born in Hardin county; that his father died when he was 18 months old; that he came to live with J. H. Bales, when he was 3 years old, and continued to so live until his marriage; that he went through high school in Eldora, the home of the testator, and graduated in 1903. Then he went to Penn College one year. He came back to Eldora and worked in a hardware store for a time, and then went into a store in New Providence, purchased by J. H. Bales; that he became interested in that store in 1905. On his twenty-first birthday testator gave him a one-eighth interest in the hardware stock, and also one-eighth interest in New Providence Bank, the only consideration there being $1, love, and affection; that the interest at that time was valued at $1,000; that he continued in the hardware business at New Providence until 1908, until the stock was disposed of; that at the time he was five years old he took the name of Bales, and has ever since been known by that name. It appears that the relationship between Mr. Bales and Jimmie, during all the years that he resided with Mr. Bales, was substantially that of father and son; that in addressing Mr. Bales he called him father. As early as 1905, in conversation with one J. C. Cox, who was a witness in this case, he said that they were urging him to give money to Penn College, but he did not know what he would do about it. “I expect my wife will have the majority of my property, at least during her life, and we consider Jimmie very much as if he were our own...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Burrell's Estate, In re
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • December 15, 1959
    ...the evidence must disclose more than a scintilla of evidence to justify the trial court in submitting the case to the jury. Bales v. Bales, 164 Iowa 257, 145 N.W. 673; In re Kenny's Estate, 233 Iowa 600, 10 N.W.2d 73, 76; 95 C.J.S. Wills § 462 b(1); In re Kenny's Estate, supra, we said: 'Th......
  • Tomin's Estate, In re
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • July 11, 1967
    ...'This court is committed to the doctrine that a mere scintilla of evidence will not sustain the burden of proof.' In Bales v. Bales, 164 Iowa 257, 276, 145 N.W. 673, 680, we announced the rule since followed in this jurisdiction and said: 'It was formerly considered necessary in all cases t......
  • Iahn v. MacMurtry (In re Jahn's Will)
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • October 17, 1922
    ...773, 7 Am. St. Rep. 489;In re Richardson's Will, 190 Iowa, 586, 180 N. W. 639;Byrne v. Byrne, 186 Iowa, 345, 172 N. W. 655;Bales v. Bales, 164 Iowa, 257, 145 N. W. 673;In re Will of Kester, 183 Iowa, 1336, 167 N. W. 614. Even if we should find that the evidence was insufficient to justify t......
  • Latch's Estate, In re
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • November 12, 1968
    ...'This court is committed to the doctrine that a mere scintilla of evidence will not sustain the burden of proof.' In Sales v. Bales, 164 Iowa 257, 276, 145 N.W. 673, 680, we announced the rule since followed in this jurisdiction and said: 'It was formerly considered necessary in all cases t......
  • 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