Bronson v. Martin
| Decision Date | 11 November 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 27201.,27201. |
| Citation | 51 N.E.2d 149,384 Ill. 129 |
| Parties | BRONSON v. MARTIN et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Proceeding by Doris M. Bronson against Audria Dorothy Martin and others seeking admission to probate of an instrument purporting to be the last will and testament of Byron C. Bronson, deceased. From an order of the circuit court denying probate, plaintiff appeals.
Order reversed and cause remanded with directions.Appeal from Circuit Court, Kane County; Win G. Knoch, Judge.
Patrick H. O'Donnell, of Belvidere, and Hall & Hall, of Rockford, for appellant.
Charles G. Seidel, of Elgin, and W. Ben Morgan, guardian ad litem, of Elgin, for appellees.
The probate court of Kane county denied probate to an instrument purporting to be the last will and testament of Bryon C. Bronson, deceased. On appeal the circuit court of that county, after hearing witnesses in addition to those who attested deceased's signature, entered an order denying probate. The instrument, if admitted to probate, devises a freehold in lands in this State and therefore the appeal has been brought direct to this court. The question for decision is as to whether the instrument was duly executed.
Byron C. Bronson was foreman of the machine department of the Elgin National Watch Company, which position he held for a number of years prior to his death. His department was engaged in building machines for the making of small tools. The part set aside for his office was in the room where a considerable amount of the machinery was located. The two attesting witnesses, Erna Loechelt, now Erna Stene, and Agnes Hebeisen, were employees of the company assigned to office work under Bronson's direction. Each of them had known him for a number of years. The relative location of the desks occupied by Bronson and the attesting witnesses is important in visualizing the circumstances under which the instrument was signed. The desks at which Bronson and Erna Loechelt worked were located end to end, her desk being to the left of his. One seated straight to either desk would face in a northeasterly direction. The desk where Agnes Hebeisen was employed was in front and to the left of the other two. Agnes Hebeisen testified that she was left handed and that when seated at her desk in a position to write, she would face in a northerly direction. The distance from where Bronson was seated at his desk to where Erna Loechelt was seated was about four feet, and the distance from Bronson to Agnes Hebeisen was about eight feet. There was evidence that when the machinery in the room was in operation it created some noise.
It is conceded testator wrote the entire instrument in longhand, including the attestation clause. It was dated August 14, 1940. He died April 11, 1942. Doris M. Bronson, proponent-appellant, is his widow. The contestants-appellees are his only heirs-at-law, the children of a former marriage. Except for a small bequest made to each of the two children, the instrument gives the entire estate to the widow.
Erna Loechelt testified that on the day the will was written she observed testator writing at his desk and that he then said to her: ‘Watch me while I sign this.’ That he wrote his name, pulled out a slide on the left of his desk, placed the instrument on it and asked her to sign, which she did. She testified that after writing her name, testator asked her to take it to Agnes Hebeisen and have her sign it. Agnes Hebeisen was seated at her desk and Erna Loechelt testified that she took the instrument to Agnes's desk and asked her to sign it. She testified that while she was going from her desk to the Hebeisen desk, and while Miss Hebeisen was signing, testator was seated at his desk, looking in the direction where Miss Hebeisen was signing the instrument. She further testified that when the instrument was presented to Agnes Hebeisen for signature, Agnes said ‘What is the paper?’ and that she said, ‘It is Mr. Bronson's will.’
Agnes Hebeisen testified that Erna Loechelt brought the paper to her desk where she was seated and told her to sign it; that she saw the signature of Erna Loechelt and recognized the instrument was in Mr. Bronson's handwriting. She was asked the question, ‘Did Miss Loechelt say to you that Mr. Bronson asked her to bring it to you to have you sign it,’ to which she answeredthat she did not remember. She admitted, however, that when testifying before the probate court her answer to a similar question was that She testified that she did not see Bronson's signature on the instrument when she signed, but later in her testimony she said that if his signature was then on the instrument the reason for her not seeing it was because she did not look. The further question was asked: ‘Is it not a fact that Mr. Bronson called to you and asked you to sign this paper?’ and her answer was: ‘I don't remember.’ On cross-examination, she testified positively that she did not see Byron C. Bronson sign his name and that he did not acknowledge to her that it was his will. Each of the witnesses testified that Byron C. Bronson was mentally competent and each stated that they had signed a prior will for him. In explanation of discrepancies between her testimony in probate court, the hearing in the circuit court and statements made when not under oath, Agnes Hebeisen said that she had confused the circumstances of the execution of this will with the witnessing of the former will.
Agnes Hebeisen testified that after she signed the instrument she returned it to Erna Loechelt, and that testator was then seated at his desk. Erna Loechelt testified that after Agnes had signed the instrument and handed it to her, she returned it to Mr. Bronson, that he put it in an envelope, sealed it and then wrote something on it. The evidence of other witnesses discloses that after testator's death this instrument was found in a sealed envelope in a safety box with other papers. The envelope was introduced in evidence on the hearing in the probate court but being unable to locate it on the trial in the circuit court, it was stipulated by the adult parties (which included all but Gale Miles Bronson) that the writing in Bronson's hand on the envelope was ‘My Last Will and Testament’ followed by a date, which was same as the instrument and his signature.
The relative location of the signature of Byron C. Bronson to the attestation clause and the signatures of the attesting witnesses to the clause is as follows:
‘(Seal) Byron C. Bronson.
‘We, the undersigned do hereby swear that the testator of this will is of sound mind and thoroughly capable of making a proper disposal of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weaver's Estate, Matter of
...The statute governing the execution of wills does not require it and it is so held in the cases. The following is from Bronson v. Martin, 384 Ill. 129, 51 N.E.2d 149, 152: "Any acknowledgment made by the testator that the instrument has been executed by him need not include the word 'will' ......
-
Spangler v. Bell
...to the signing and attestation of wills and codicils, are the same as those required under the former Wills Act. Bronson v. Martin, 384 Ill. 129, 51 N.E.2d 149. The right to dispose of property by will is purely statutory, and subject to the regulation and control of the legislature. The st......
-
Glenn v. Mann
...N.E. 1021 with Graham v. Graham, 32 N.C. 219. A case which is strikingly similar on its facts to the present case is Bronson v. Martin et al., 384 Ill. 129, 51 N.E.2d 149 , and an examination of that case is helpful in considering the issues presented The evidence in the Bronson case showed......
- Anderson v. Lagow (In re Lagow's Will)