Cook v. Hollyday
Decision Date | 07 February 1946 |
Docket Number | 66. |
Citation | 45 A.2d 761,185 Md. 656 |
Parties | COOK v. HOLLYDAY. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; E. Paul Mason, Judge.
Proceeding by Audrey Louise Hollyday against Fillmore Cook, executor of the estate of Evelyn Cook, deceased, to contest the will of deceased. From the verdict of the jury and the decision and determination on the issues submitted, and from the overruling and refusal of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the executor appeals.
Affirmed.
See also 45 A.2d 768.
Joseph Townsend England, of Baltimore, for appellant.
Edward L. Ward, of Baltimore (John R. Norris, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, and MARKELL JJ.
This is an appeal by Fillmore Cook, executor of the estate of Florence Evelyn Cook, deceased, from the verdict of the jury and the decision and determination on the issues submitted and from the overruling and refusal of a motion for a judgment n.o.v. (notwithstanding the verdict), in a case of caveat filed to the will of Florence Evelyn Cook by her daughter, Audrey Louise Hollyday.
The testatrix in the will in question devised all her property to her daughter, Audrey Louise Hollyday, subject to Items II and III of the will. She named her brother-in-law, Fillmore Cook as executor without bond.
For a proper consideration of the case it is necessary to quote Items II and III, which follow:
The issues submitted to the jury and the answers of the jury to those issues follow:
'1--Were the contents of said paper-writing, dated the 18th day of January, 1943, purporting to be the Last Will and Testament of Florence Evelyn Cook, read to or by the Testator, or known to her at or before the time of the alleged execution thereof?'
A. Under the instruction of the Court, 'Yes.'
'2--Was the execution of said paper-writing, dated the 18th day of January, 1943, purporting to be the Last Will and Testament of Florence Evelyn Cook, procured by undue influence exercised and practiced upon her?' A. 'Yes.'
'3--Was the said paper-writing, dated the 18th day of January, 1943, purporting to be the Last Will and Testament of the said Florence Evelyn Cook, executed by her when she was of sound and disposing mind and capable of executing a valid deed or contract?' A. 'No.'
'4--Was the said paper-writing, dated January 18th, 1943, and purporting to be the Last Will and Testament of Florence Evelyn Cook, deceased, procured by fraud and misrepresentation exercised and practiced upon her at the time of the execution of said paper-writing?' A. 'Yes.'
The appellant testified that previous to February 24, 1933, Mrs. Lula H. Cook owned a one-third interest in the properties, Nos. 7 and 9 East North Avenue, the real estate, the bowling alleys, and thirty-three and one-third shares, a one-third interest, in the Paradise Amusement Company. He owned a one-third interest in the same properties and stock and the remaining one-third interest was owned by the testatrix, who inherited it from her husband, the brother of the appellant. This one-third interest of Lula H. Cook was offered to him for the price of $5,333.33 (one-third of $40,000, less one-third of the then balance on the mortgage and the thirty-three and one-third shares of stock at $10 per share) and not to the testatrix. If he had acquired it in his own right, the testatrix would have then owned a one-third interest in the properties and stock and he would have owned a two-thirds interest. He testified that he and the testatrix then made a verbal agreement. He said, 'The agreement was that Mrs. Florence Evelyn Cook and myself would take over the interest of Mrs. Lula H. Cook in the property numbers 7 and 9 East North Avenue, the real estate, the bowling alleys, and the thirty-three and one-third shares of the Paradise Amusement Company in our joint names and would then, each of us, transfer to my wife one of our shares of stock in the Paradise Amusement Company, which would leave forty-nine shares in my name and forty-nine shares in the name of Mrs. Florence Evelyn Cook, and two shares in the name of Catherine E. Cook, my wife, and that was made for the purpose of giving my wife and myself the controlling interest in the corporation, the Paradise Amusement Company.
He further testified that at the time this verbal agreement was made he had been a practicing attorney for thirty-one years, was attorney for Florence Evelyn Cook and had been attorney for her prior to that time and since, and had prepared the will in question. He further stated that after the agreement was made Mrs. Lula H. Cook's interest was conveyed on February 24, 1933, in a deed drawn by him. The testatrix and he then each sold one share of stock to his wife, Catherine E. Cook, for $10 a share thereby giving Fillmore Cook and his wife a fifty-one percent interest in the corporation and leaving the testatrix with a forty-nine percent interest.
He further stated that on Saturday, January 16, 1943, his wife called him on the phone from testatrix' home telling him that testatrix was seriously ill and she thought that he ought to see her and as a result of that message he went to her home to see how she felt, talk to her, and see whether he could be of any assistance or service to her as they had always been very friendly, as friendly as two people could be. When he arrived she was suffering some pain and he knew that she was ill.
On the following day, Sunday, January 17, 1943, he again went to the testatrix' home, proceeded to her bedroom on the second floor, and sat on the side of testatrix' bed. At that time he said she was a very sick woman. The caveatrix and daughter of the testatrix, Audrey Louise Hollyday, sat in a chair at the foot of the bed. The testatrix then said to him 'I want to make my Last Will and Testament.' He then asked her what provisions she desired to make. She stated that she wanted to leave her entire estate to her daughter. He said to her, 'That would include the Aurora Theatre property, as well as the Highlandtown Post Office property and your...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Freeland
...by such coercion, or by importunities which could not be resisted, so that motive was tantamount to force or fear); Cook v. Hollyday, 185 Md. 656, 45 A.2d 761 (1946) (where it is found that a person was so weak in body that she was a mere passive instrument in the hands of others, and the c......
-
Koppal v. Soules
... ... indeed, it has any application to testamentary dispositions ... Tyson v. Tyson, supra; Griffith v. Diffenderffer, 50 ... Md. 466, 484; Cook v. Hollyday, 185 Md. 656, 667, 45 ... A.2d 761. But see Page, Wills, Lifetime Ed., §§ 818, 821; ... Notes 66 A.L.R. 228 ... [56 A.2d 51] ... ...
-
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Sybert
...1 In support of this contention appellant cites the following cases: Iula v. Grampa, 257 Md. 370, 263 A.2d 548 (1970); Cook v. Hollyday, 185 Md. 656, 45 A.2d 761 (1946); In re Williams, 180 Md. 689, 23 A.2d 7 (1941); Baker v. Otto, 180 Md. 53, 22 A.2d 924 (1941); Crest Investment Trust, Inc......