Crowson v. Crowson
| Decision Date | 17 March 1903 |
| Citation | 72 S.W. 1065,172 Mo. 691 |
| Parties | CROWSON et al. v. CROWSON et al., Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Callaway Circuit Court. -- Hon. Jno. A. Hockaday, Judge.
Reversed.
Robert McPheeters, J. W. Tincher and N. D. Thurmond for appellants.
(1) The evidence in this case clearly shows that at the time testator made the will he understood the business about which he was engaged; knew the persons who were the natural objects of his bounty, and understood his relations to them, and knew what property he had, and the disposition he desired to make of it. The provisions of the will itself are such as any wise and prudent man would make for his wife and infant children and the reasonableness of such provisions is proof itself of testamentary capacity. This being the case, the court should have taken the question of testamentary capacity from the jury. Cash v. Lust, 142 Mo. 630; McFadin v Catron, 138 Mo. 197; Riggin v. Westminster College, 160 Mo. 570. (2) The law requires something more definite and tangible than mere indefinite generalities to destroy or overbalance the presumption of capacity. McFadin v. Catron, 138 Mo. 197; Doherty v Gilmore, 136 Mo. 421. (3) The provisions of the will, without other testimony, establish both the sanity of the testator and his freedom from undue influence while directing and executing the same. The will itself is reasonable. Miller v. St. Louis Hospital, 5 Mo.App. 398. (4) The burden is on the plaintiff to show undue influence, coercion, overpersuasion, or fraud and deceit, in procuring the execution of a will. Such influence, to invalidate a will, must dominate the will of the testator, so that it will not be his own act and deed. And this influence must have operated upon the mind of the person making the will at the time the same was made. In this case the wife was not present on Tuesday evening when he asked his nephew who was going to town next day to call on the probate judge and get him a blank will, nor when his nephew handed him the papers late Wednesday evening, nor was she present at the time the will was written and signed, but was sent from the room by her husband and by the writer, Mr. Beaven, for fear that even her presence would invalidate it. McFadin v. Catron, 120 Mo. 275; Sunderland v. Hood, 84 Mo. 293; Tibbe v. Kamp, 154 Mo. 545. (5) The testimony of Mrs. Mary Gustine shows that it was the intention of the testator to leave his property by will to these younger children. The will is in accordance with the declarations made to her at the time the birth of his youngest child was announced to him. This is strong corroborative proof of testamentary capacity and also of freedom from undue influence. Thompson v. Ish, 99 Mo. 160. (6) The court admitted the testimony of Tom Miller as to statements made by deceased prior to the making of the will, which testimony was admissible for the purpose of showing the state of testator's mind, his previous purposes and intentions, and therefore, it was admitted without objection on the part of defendants, but it was not admissible for the purpose of showing undue influence of the wife over her husband. And yet it can be readily seen that it would have just this effect on the minds of the jury unless the court instructed the jury that they could not consider it for this purpose. The court gave no such instruction at the close of the testimony. This we contend was reversible error. Even if this testimony proved the existence of an influence of the wife, attempted to be exerted, yet it is not sufficient to invalidate the will, because there is no evidence that he yielded to her entreaties, nor that such an influence was exerted upon him at the time the will was made, which was ten days after the alleged statements. Thompson v. Ish, supra; Sunderland v. Hood, 84 Mo. 293.
D. P. Bailey and D. H. Harris for respondents.
(1) The expert evidence is all to the effect that it was not probable, though possible, that deceased was in condition, mentally, to make the will in question. The jury found that he was not and the trial court refused to interfere with the verdict. (2) Appellants, under second point, use this language: "When the formal execution of a will according to the requirements of the statutes is shown, as in this case was done, a will prima facie valid is established, and it then rests upon the contestants to overcome this presumption by substantial evidence." Citing McFadin v. Catron, 138 Mo. 197. This language omits the following words: "Beyond a peradventure and the subscribing witnesses testify to the proper age and sanity of the testator." In this case Beaven, one of the subscribing witnesses and who wrote the will, testifies that testator was not of sound mind. (3) Appellants' third point is that the provisions of the will establish both the sanity of the testator and his freedom from undue influence. They claim that "the will is reasonable," etc. Is this true? Deceased married a Miss Todd in 1860. She had a great deal more than he did. She was a good worker and manager and a good financier and made more of the living than he did. She was anxious to have a home of their own and all they could make they put in their home and bought out the shares of the heirs as fast as they could (i. e., the heirs of deceased's father). His first wife died in 1877, leaving three boys, the contestants, and a little girl, who died at fourteen months of age. After his wife died, deceased and the three boys lived on and worked the farm until the boys became of age. (4) Is the will reasonable? The widow and minor children are entitled under the statutes to a homestead amounting to $ 1,500. She got dower in personalty about $ 500. Her children, the minors, will get one-half the balance of the real estate, estimated at $ 2,500, making in all some $ 3,900 or more, besides the property set over to her as individual and which she got from him. This leaves to the three contestants about $ 1,250 -- not much, but if the judgment of the trial court is upheld, these three boys will be relieved of the stigma of being disinherited by a father, whom they -- with their mother -- helped to make a small competency, for an ordinary farmer. The will is unreasonable, unconscionable and unjust. Hence, the probative force of the instrument itself is wholly lost.
This is a statutory contest of the will of R. T. Crowson, deceased, late of Callaway county, The will bears date March 2, 1899, and the testator died on March 6, 1899, at the age of sixty-nine years. The will was admitted to probate by the probate court of Callaway county on March 9, 1899. The petition alleges, first, that at the time R. T. Crowson executed said will he was not possessed of sufficient mental capacity to make a valid will; and, second, that said pretended will was procured by undue influence of Minnie Crowson, his wife, over the said R. T. Crowson.
The answers were general denials. The answers of all the defendants, except that of Minnie, were of their guardian ad litem, they being minors.
The issues were duly framed by the trial court and submitted to a jury resulting in a verdict that the paper in evidence was not the will of R. T. Crowson. Defendants appeal.
The facts briefly stated are that R. T. Crowson was married twice, his first wife leaving at her death three sons, Eugene L., Jonathan (called "Doc.") and Egbert. At the time of the death of their mother they were all minors, living with their father on his farm, where they remained until about the time they became respectively of age, or nearly so. The two younger ones, Doc and Egbert, worked their father's farm a year or two after they became of age and received a part of the crops for their services. In November, 1889, six or eight years after the death of his first wife, R. T. Crowson married the defendant Minnie, whose name before her marriage was Liggon, and took her to his home. The two younger boys were still with their father and remained with him for a year or more after his marriage to his second wife. These sons as they became of age received small sums from their father, as much as his circumstances permitted him to give them, and also received from their grandmother's estate money or property amounting to seven or eight hundred dollars. R. T. Crowson died leaving the three sons by his first wife, and three small children by his last wife, towit, Edmund, eight years old, Mary five, and Ruth two. At the time of his death his older sons were all established in business -- the oldest, Eugene, was a practicing physician doing a good practice near St. Joseph, Missouri, Doc was on a farm near Fulton, and the youngest, Egbert, owned a farm of seventeen acres set out in young fruit trees, about four miles from St. Joseph.
For eight or ten years before his death R. T. Crowson was troubled with smothering spells, supposed to be caused by heart trouble. These spells became more frequent the last year or two before his death. He had not been able to perform any heavy manual labor for a number of years. Any violent exertion or any unusual occurrence would bring on the smothering spells, so that he would have to be fanned and have the doors and windows opened so as to get as much air as possible. During the winter prior to his death his health was worse than it had been; however, he continued to look after his stock, fed them and sheltered them himself until about a week before his death. He was troubled a good deal with his breathing on the eighteenth of February, and also on the twenty-fifth, and on up to the twenty-eighth, but most of that time he continued to look after and feed his stock except on one or two days when his son, Doc, or a neighbor did that work for him. On...
To continue reading
Request your trial