Belfield v. Coop

Decision Date22 March 1956
Docket NumberNo. 33623,33623
Citation58 A.L.R.2d 1008,8 Ill.2d 293,134 N.E.2d 249
Parties, 58 A.L.R.2d 1008 Russell BELFIELD et al., Appellees, v. Ralph COOP et al., Appellants.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

Sears & Streit, Chicago, Samuel Saxon, Plainfield, and John P. Simpson, Aurora (Barnabas F. Sears and Robert F. Casey, Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.

Root & Hoffman, Morris, and David C. Mewhirter, Yorkville, for appellees.

DAVIS, Justice.

This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of Kendall County declaring that a certain instrument is not the last will and testament of Evreard Belfield, deceased, setting aside said instrument and declaring the probate thereof null and void. The decree was entered upon the verdict of a jury in an action brought by the plaintiffs, Russell Belfield and Helen Falkenberg, a nephew and niece of deceased and his sole heirs-at-law. The defendants were Ralph Coop and Sara Grate as joint executors of the will, and the legatees and devisees hereinafter named, all of whom appealed except Earl Horton and Florence Grate. Sara Grate, Ida Mae Silvius, Florence Grate and Earl Horton, defendants, were nieces and a nephew of Agnes Belfield, testator's deceased wife.

Evreard Belfield, a resident of Kendall County, died in a hospital at Joliet, on April 19, 1953, at the age of 83 years. The will in question, dated April 16, 1953, was duly admitted to probate in the county court of Kendall County. It provided for the payment of the testator's just debts and funeral expenses and the erection of a mounment over his grave and that of his deceased wife; bequeathed $10,000 to each of the plaintiffs; devised a farm, containing 160 acres, valued at about $58,400, and known as the Belfield homestead, to Ralph Coop, a tenant; devised another farm of 143 acres, valued at about $47,500, known as the Wilson farm to Clinton Wilson, known as Jack Wilson, and described as a friend of the testator; devised a third farm, known as the Bundy farm, containing 160 acres and worth about $54,000 to Sara Grate, described in the will as testator's niece; devised a fourth farm, known as the Grate farm, containing 158 acres and valued at $35,340, to a friend, Edward Markstrom, Sr.; devised a fifth farm containing 120 acres worth about $21,600, and known as the Dano farm to Ida Mae Silvius, designated as testator's niece, and her husband, Jesse L. Silvius; directed the executors to give bond as required by statute and to sell the remaining farm lands to pay bequests and State inheritance and Federal estate taxes, and to distribute the balance, if any, in accordance with the residuary clause, which devised and bequeathed all the residue 'to my nephews Russell Belfield and Earl Horton and my nieces Helen Falkenberg, Sara Grate, Florence Grate and Ida Mae Silvius in equal shares, share and share alike.'

The evidence shows that Evreard Belfield left an estate valued in excess of $366,000, consisting of seven farms of the aggregate value of $311,992.50, and personal property valued at $54,013.29, and that the value of the residuary estate, after deducting specific legacies, fees and taxes, was $2730.84, or about $455.14 for each of the six residuary beneficiaries. Agnes Belfield, wife of the decedent predeceased him by about a month, having died intestate, on March 18, 1953. The Belfields were married in 1906 and never had, or adopted, any children. This property was acquired largely through their joint efforts, but Agnes had inherited certain money from her parents which she contributed to the purchase of the farms. Title to five of the seven farms had been vested in Agnes and Evreard Belfield as joint tenants, and title to the Belfield homestead farm was in Evreard Belfield. Title to the Martin farm, which had originally been purchased by Agnes and her brother, had been vested in Agnes and Evreard Belfield as tenants in common. Evreard Belfield had executed a will on October 1, 1951, leaving his entire estate to his wife. Agnes Belfield left surviving as her sole heirs-at-law her husband and her sister, Margaret Horton, mother of Earl Horton, and her nieces, Sara Grate, Florence Grate and Ida Mae Silvius, daughters of a deceased sister, Janet Grate.

The complaint charged that the testator, at the time of the execution of the purported will, lacked testamentary capacity and was under the undue influence, dominion and control of the defendant Sara Grate, whereby her will was substituted for his.

All of the defendants except Earl Horton, who was defaulted, answered and denied the allegations of the complaint. At the trial the defendants made motions for a directed verdict generally and upon the issues of testamentary capacity and undue influence separately, both at the close of plaintiffs' case and at the close of all the evidence. These motions were overruled as were motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. The errors assigned and argued here are: (1) that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence on behalf of plaintiffs and excluding certain evidence offered on behalf of the defendants; (2) that error was committed in overruling various motions; (3) that the verdict is not supported by the evidence; (4) that the court erred in giving certain instructions tendered by plaintiffs; and (5) that the argument and conduct of counsel for plaintiffs was prejudicial.

Plaintiffs called defendant Earl Horton, one of the six residuary beneficiaries, as a witness under section 60 of the Civil Practice Act. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1953, chap. 110, par. 184.) Over repeated objections by defense counsel, he was permitted to testify to conversations he said he had with Sara Grate relative to Evreard Belfield's 'attempting to make a will.' The objections were made upon the ground that any declarations or admissions by Sara Grate relating to testamentary capacity or undue influence were inadmissible and prejudicial as far as the other beneficiaries were concerned since the interests of the legatees and devisees under the will in question were several and not joint, and no conspiracy was charged. The court sustained a few of the objections interposed to statements attributed to Sara Grate by Horton and ordered the answers stricken, but allowed most of them to stand. The reasons for the alternating rulings are not apparent. For example, Horton at one point testified that Sara Grate said to him, 'If he goes to the hospital, I don't think we will get the will through, I don't think we can.' An objection made at this time was sustained and the answer ordered stricken. But without being asked another question, Horton then volunteered: 'Well anyway she expressed an opinion that it would be harder to get a will made while he was in the hospital.' The objection to this statement was overruled and it was allowed to stand. Both of these statements attributed by Horton to Sara Grate are to the same effect and, if objectionable, are equally so.

In substance, the conversations related by Horton as having taken place between himself and Sara Grate were that Horton and Sara Grate conceived a plan of suggesting to Evreard Belfield that he make a will treating the nephew and nieces on Agnes Belfield's side of the family and the nephew and niece on testator's side of the family equally; that this plan was formulated after the death of Agnes Belfield when they learned that unless Evreard Belfield made a new will, all of the property would go to the testator's heirs, the plaintiffs, Russell Belfield and Helen Falkenberg; that they went so far as to draft a simple form of a will with the idea of suggesting it to the testator, but Horton was to have no part in making the suggestion as in his words: 'Well, Sara didn't seem to want any help with that part. She thought she could handle that.' Horton depicts himself as playing a minor part while Sara Grate has the role of one ready and able to influence Evreard Belfield; and, if Horton's testimony is to be believed, he was double-crossed by Sara Grate, as the will in question is nothing like the will allegedly discussed by them. Horton further testified to a conversation which was supposed to have taken place in the kitchen of the Belfield home the day before Evreard Belfield was taken to the hospital. At that time Horton says he asked Sara if she had made any progress toward drawing up the will. She is reputed to have said that she had not; that since the day Evreard had gone to the doctor, he had been in no condition to talk about a will; that her primary concern was to get him 'happy' again before she approached him about the will. As part of the same conversation Sara is supposed to have said that Evreard would have to have oxygen soon or he would 'croak,' and that she did not want him to go to the hospital because it would be harder to get a will made there. Horton also testified to a conversation he had with Sara after Belfield was in the hospital and on the very day the purported will was executed, wherein he asked her whether she had made any progress toward the will, and that she replied that she had not; that she had seen two lawyers and there was more to it than he thought. Horton stated that he then said that Evreard didn't look very good to him and that it appeared that it was almost too late, and that Sara then told him that he might as well go as she was 'going to work on Evreard.' On objection, the latter part of this conversation was ordered stricken. The statements attributed to Sara Grate by Earl Horton are replete with admissions or declarations.

Without further detailing the testimony of Earl Horton, it appears that the statements ascribed to Sara Grate have a direct bearing on the issues of both undue influence and testamentary capacity and, if believed, constitute admissions on her part that testator lacked testamentary capacity, could be influenced and that she intended to influence him in the making of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
203 cases
  • Lopez v. United States, 236
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 27, 1963
    ...confession immediately after arrest. 1. See Burgman v. United States, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 184, 188 F.2d 637; Belfield v. Coop, 8 Ill.2d 293, 134 N.E.2d 249, 58 A.L.R.2d 1008 (1956); Boyne City, G. & A.R. Co. v. Anderson, 146 Mich. 328, 109 N.W. 429, 8 L.R.A.,N.S., 306 (1906); State v. Reyes, 20......
  • Commercial Nat. Bank of Chicago v. City of Chicago
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • January 25, 1982
    ...function is to give effect to a provision as written, this is so only if its meaning is certain and unambiguous (Belfield v. Coop (1956), 8 Ill.2d 293, 307, 134 N.E.2d 249) or free from doubt (Weiss Memorial Hospital v. Kroncke (1957), 12 Ill.2d 98, 105, 145 N.E.2d 71). Where an ordinance u......
  • People v. Woodard
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • February 20, 1997
    ...(1994); see also In re Estate of Swiecicki, 106 Ill.2d 111, 120, 87 Ill.Dec. 511, 477 N.E.2d 488 (1985), quoting Belfield v. Coop, 8 Ill.2d 293, 307, 134 N.E.2d 249 (1956)), nor is it necessary for the court to search for any subtle or not readily apparent intention of the legislature (DiFo......
  • People v. Collins
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 21, 2020
    ...treated as hearsay but as a mechanical eavesdropper ***."). Harvey pulled the "mechanical eavesdropper" rule from Belfield v. Coop , 8 Ill. 2d 293, 134 N.E.2d 249 (1956), but examining Belfield , we see its rule had nothing to do with hearsay.¶ 42 In Belfield , the question presented dealt ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Illinois Objections
    • May 1, 2013
    ...3d 1026, 740 NE 2d 1131 (2000), §14:80 Bednar v. Commonwealth Edison , 156 Ill App 3d 568, 509 NE2d 687 (1987), §21:130 Belfield v. Coop , 8 Ill 2d 293, 134 NE2d 249 (1956), §1:60 Belleville v. Family Video Movie Club , 318 Ill App 3d 991, 744 NE2d 322 (2001), §4:20 Bell v. Hill , 271 Ill A......
  • Procedures for Objections & Motions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Illinois Objections
    • May 1, 2013
    ...reviewing court may consider an assignment of error even if no objection was made and no ruling was made or preserved. Belfield v. Coop , 8 Ill 2d 293, 134 NE2d 249 (1956); Simmons v. University of Chicago Hosp. & Clinics , 162 Ill 2d 1, 642 NE2d 107 (1994); Velarde v. Ill Central RR. , 354......
  • Rule 103 Rulings on Evidence
    • United States
    • The Illinois Rules of Evidence: A Color-Coded Guide Article I General Provisions
    • Invalid date
    ...2d 363 (1990), where the supreme court noted that plain error review in a civil case was first applied by that court in Belfield v. Coop, 8 Ill. 2d 293 (1956), where the court held: "If prejudicial arguments are made without objection of counsel or interference of the trial court to the ext......

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