Clark v. Stansbury

• Decision Date: 28 June 1878
• Citation: 49 Md. 346
• Parties: ALFRED F. CLARK v. ANN MARTHA STANSBURY, and Others.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

49 Md. 346

ALFRED F. CLARK v. ANN MARTHA STANSBURY, and Others.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 28, 1878

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Carroll County.

Joseph Stansbury died in October, 1876, leaving a widow and four children. He was at the time of his death about eighty-two years of age, had been once paralyzed, and had been in feeble health for some years before his death. On December 28th 1875, said Stansbury executed a deed whereby, in consideration of love and affection, he conveyed to Alfred F Clark and wife a house and lot in Westminster, Md., and on December 28th, executed an agreement to pay to said Clark $2300, in consideration of which said Clark was to take care of and provide for said Stansbury during the remainder of his life. He had also executed two wills, one on the 1st of February, 1876, and the other on the 23rd of April, 1876, in each of which the testator bequeathed to said Clark "the amount of money set forth in an agreement signed on the 28th of December, 1875." These two papers purporting to be the last will and testament of said Stansbury were offered for probate in the Orphans' Court for Carroll County, but on the caveat and petition of the wife and children of said Stansbury, the following issues were sent to the Circuit Court for trial, involving testamentary capacity, fraud, and undue influence.

1. Was the said Joseph Stansbury, at the time of executing the paper-writing, dated February 1st, 1876, purporting to be his last will and testament, of sound and disposing mind, and capable of executing a valid deed or contract?

2. Was the execution of the paper-writing, dated February 1st, 1876 purporting to be the last will and testament of said Joseph Stansbury, procured by fraud, importunities or undue influence, which he, the said Joseph Stansbury, in his then condition, was unable to resist?

3. Was the paper-writing, dated February 1st, 1876, procured by undue influence, fraudulent devices, importunities misrepresentations or deceits practiced upon the said Joseph Stansbury, which, under the circumstances, did not leave him free in the disposition of his estate?

4. Was the said Joseph Stansbury, at the time of executing the paper-writing, dated April 23rd, 1876, purporting to be his last will and testament, of sound and disposing mind, and capable of executing a valid deed or contract?

5. Was the execution of the paper-writing, dated April 23rd, 1876 purporting to be the last will and testament of the said Joseph Stansbury, procured by fraud, importunities or undue influence, which he, the said Joseph Stansbury, in his then condition, was unable to resist?

6. Was the paper-writing, dated April 23rd, 1876, procured by undue influence, fraudulent devices, importunities, misrepresentations or deceits practiced upon the said Joseph Stansbury, which, under the circumstances, did not leave him free in the disposition of his estate?

Caveatee's First Exception.--At the trial below the caveators offered in evidence the two papers dated respectively February 1st, 1876, and April 23rd, 1876, purporting to be the last will and testament of Joseph Stansbury, also the written agreement whereby Stansbury had agreed to pay Clark $2300.00 for his services in providing for him, and also the deed dated December 24th, 1875, whereby in consideration of love and affection the said Stansbury had conveyed to said Clark a house and lot; for the purpose of showing that these papers were all executed in pursuance of an influence and dominion exercised by Clark which the testator could not resist. The caveatees objected to the admissibility of the deed in evidence, as irrelevant, collateral and immaterial, but the court overruled the objection, and allowed the deed to be put in evidence with the other papers aforesaid.

Caveatee's Second Exception.--The caveators further offered in evidence a paper dated November 9th, 1874, purporting to be the last will and testament of said Stansbury, whereby he left all his property to his wife and children, executed before he had become subject to the influence and dominion of said Clark, to the admissibility of which paper in evidence the caveatees objected, as immaterial and impertinent to the issues in this case. But the...