Chaney v. Baker

• Decision Date: 21 October 1922
• Docket Number: No. 14257.,14257.
• Citation: 136 N.E. 804,304 Ill. 362
• Parties: CHANEY et al. v. BAKER et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

304 Ill. 362

136 N.E. 804

CHANEY et al.

v.BAKER et al.

No. 14257.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 21, 1922.

Error to Circuit Court, De Witt County; George A. Sentel, Judge.

Suit by Mary Jane Chaney and others against Drew Baker and others, contesting the validity of a will. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiffs bring error.

Decree affirmed.

See, also, 135 N. E. 14.W. F. Gray and % a. f. m/iller, both of Clinton, and Charles Y. Miller and Le Forgee, Black & Samuels, all of Decatur, for plaintiffs in error.

Herrick & Herrick, of Clinton, for defendants in error.

DUNN, J.

John Baker, of Weldon, in De Witt county, executed his will on October 30, 1916, and died on July 10, 1918, being about 84 years old. He was survived by his widow Fannie Baker, and his heirs were six daughters and two sons. His will was admitted to probate, and the two sons, Drew Baker and Wesley Baker, were appointed executors. He owned about 320 acres of land, some town property in Weldon, including his homestead, and personal property. His will devised all his estate, real and personal, to his wife for life, and after her death 190 acres of the land to the sons, seven lots in Weldon, subject to a charge of $1,000, to his son Wesley, and the homestead, subject to a charge of $1,000, to his son Drew. Subject to some provisions not necessary to mention the will directed the conversion of the rest of the estate into money, giving to the two sons and to one of the daughters the option to buy certain portions of the real estate at $200 an acre. The money so derived, together with the two sums of $1,000 each charged against the devises to Wesley and Drew, was directed to be distributed among the daughters. Five of the daughters filed a bill in the circuit court of De Witt county against the other daughter and the two sons to contest the will on the ground of mental incompetency of the testator and undue influence exercised over him by Drew and Wesley. Issues were submitted to a jury, which were found in favor of the proponents of the will, the bill was dismissed for want of equity, and the complainants have sued out a writ of error to reverse the decree.

The testator was a native of England, where he lived until he arrived at manhood and was married, when he emigrated to this country in 1855 and soon after settled in De Witt county, where he lived the remainder of his life, and accumulated the property which he owned at his death. He moved from his farm to Weldon about 1900.

The court withdrew from the jury the consideration of the question of undue influence. The verdict in favor of the mental competency of the testator is claimed to be contrary to the weight of the evidence. About a month or two before executing his will the testator called upon the cashier of the State Bank of Weldon, and told him that he wanted to execute a will, and asked the cashier if he would be a witness. The cashier assented, and the testator then told him his plan for the distribution of his estate, which was in accordance with the will executed later. The testator also called upon W. A. Webb, who was the other witness to the will, and was engaged in the grain business in Weldon, and asked him to be a witness. Later, when the will was ready, he called at Webb's office, and they went to the bank together, where the will was executed. The next day the testatortold Webb that he had discovered an error in the description, and wanted him to sign again. Later Webb went to the bank, and, together with Swigart, the cashier, and the testator, went into the directors' room, where Swigart read aloud the will which Baker produced, and the will was then executed and attested.

After the testator moved to Weldon his land was occupied by tenants, two of whom were his sons. He gave to his land and his tenants such care and attention as circumstances required, receiving the assistance of his older son, Wesley, in the later years of his life. He was one of the five directors of the State Bank of Weldon, attended the meetings, and took part in the conduct of its business, showing an intelligent interest in its affairs. Many witnesses were examined who testified to their long acquaintance with the testator, and familiarity with him through the ordinary events which occur among neighbors and acquaintances. His transactions were for the most part neither large nor important, but, taken together, were sufficient to enable the persons who met him from day to day to form an opinion as to his soundness of mind. The opinions of the witnesses who testified in the case were almost uniformly that the testator was of sound mind, and mentally competent to transact ordinary business. The witnesses who expressed such opinions, more than 30 in number, included officers of the bank, farmers, merchants, an assessor, a tax collector, men of various trades and callings. It would serve no purpose to discuss in detail the testimony of the witnesses. It shows that the testator was an old man, whose physical powers were failing, who was somewhat deaf, and whose mental powers were not so active as they had been, but who was still capable of understanding and managing his business, and of participating in the control and decision of such matters of business as his circumstances required. Besides the physicians who testified, 7 witnesses expressed opinions adverse to the testator's mental competency. Two of them were ministers of the church to which the testator belonged, and three others were members of that church. Their opinions were based largely on the testator's attitude toward the conduct of church affairs, particularly with reference to the use of the church for social purposes, and for the activities of the Christian Endeavor Society and the giving of dinners in the church building. He did not believe in having the church bell ring for anything except the regular services or prayer meetings, did not believe in choir practice, disapproved of the discharge of the janitor and at another time of a change of the minister. He had expressed at one time the desire to have his funeral services conducted by a former minister of the church who was living in Oregon, but later he expressed to the minister who was then in charge of the church a change of purpose, and a desire that the minister to whom he was talking should conduct the services. The witnesses thought that the conduct of the testator in giving his testimony at prayer meetings and his long-winded prayers, in which there was much repetition of certain phrases, indicated weakness of mind. Other witnesses testified to the testator's great interest in defeating the proposition to issue bonds for the establishment of a waterworks system and electric light plant in Weldon, and to his unseemly rejoicing at the defeat of the proposition at the election, and his loud declaration after the election that ‘we voted them down.’ He was opposed to building a new schoolhouse. He was opposed to hard roads. He did not believe in oiling the roads. He was opposed to a drainage district putting a tile drain through his farm instead of an open ditch. He took a very positive stand on those questions, and witnesses testified to his loud, long, and tedious discussion of these questions on the street, when he would talk after his auditors had escaped. None of this testimony is sufficient, and all of it taken together is insufficient, to establish unsoundness of mind. It indicates the garrulity and the fixednessof opinion of old age; an opposition to taxation for public improvements; notions, perhaps old-fashioned, in regard to propriety of conduct in church matters. The relation of religious experiences, the making of long prayers and the expressions used in doing these things may have been offensive to the taste and trying to the patience of the hearers. They may have justified regarding the speaker as eccentric, but they are not unusual in the conduct of many persons whose sanity nobody questions.

Two physicians who had never seen the testator, but were experts in mental and nervous diseases, in response to hypothetical questions expressed the opinion that the testator was not of sound mind on October 30, 1916. A third physician who had been called to treat the testator at various times during several years before the will was executed also expressed an opinion unfavorable to the testator's mental competency. The hypothetical questions stated the facts supposed from the view of the proof held by the contestants' counsel. The jurors were not bound to accept that view, as were the witnesses in answering the questions, and in consideration of...