Current v. Current

• Decision Date: 29 June 1912
• Citation: 148 S.W. 860
• Parties: CURRENT et al. v. CURRENT et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

148 S.W. 860

CURRENT et al. v. CURRENT et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri. Division No. 1.

June 29, 1912.

1. WILLS (§ 166)—VALIDITY—UNDUE INFLUENCE—EVIDENCE.

In the contest of a will on the ground of undue influence, evidence held insufficient to establish such influence.

2. WILLS (§ 50)—VALIDITY—MENTAL CAPACITY.

A testator's will, though denying natural claims on his bounty, must be sustained where he understood the natural objects of his bounty and the nature and character of his property, and there was no evidence of mental incapacity or undue influence at the time of making the will.

3. WILLS (§ 38)—VALIDITY—INSANE DELUSIONS.

The fact that a testator had difficulties with his children, and in the height of his bitterness drove them from his home and determined to disinherit them, will not invalidate a subsequent will; it not appearing that he was in a paroxysm of anger amounting to an insane delusion when the will was made.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Schuyler County; Nat M. Shelton, Judge.

Action by George E. Current and others against William W. Current and others to contest the will of Eli M. Current. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

This suit was begun in the circuit court of Schuyler county to contest the will of Eli M. Current who died in February, 1909. He was twice married, and had by the first wife 4 children, namely, Alonzo Current, Lydia A. Current (both of whom were dead at the time of the testator's demise), Nancy Wall, and Matthew Current; and there were 11 children by the second wife, namely, William, Lewis, Leonard, George, and Bertha Current, and Amanda Sweet, now Warren, Sarah M. Eason, wife of John Eason, Addie Lucas, wife of William Lucas, Mary E. Lucas, wife of ____ Lucas, Melva Hess, wife of ____ Hess, and Nora Lucas, wife of ____ Lucas, plaintiffs.

Alonzo Current left surviving him four children, namely, William W., Samuel, Ernest, and Earl Current, defendants.

In July, 1907, the testator made a former will by which he devised all of his estate to his four sons, Matthew, Lewis, William, and George Current, and to his daughter Mary Lucas, and there was some evidence tending to show that Sarah M. Eason was also made one of the residuary devisees therein. All the other children were given $1 each.

On August 3, 1907, the testator destroyed the first will and then made and published the one in question, by which he devised all of his estate to his three sons, Matthew, Lewis, and William Current, and to his daughter Mary A. Lucas. The remaining children were given $1 each. William was named as executor of the will, without bond.

The grounds of the contest, as alleged in the petition, were the unsound mind of the testator and undue influence exercised by the defendant over his mind.

At the conclusion of the evidence introduced on the part of the contestants, the court, at the request of the defendants, directed the jury to find that the will propounded was the last will and testament of Eli M. Current, the testator, to which the contestants duly objected and excepted, and, in pursuance to the direction of the court, the jury returned a verdict sustaining the will. In due time and in proper manner, the contestants appealed the cause to this court.

The substance of the evidence introduced by the contestants to prove the unsoundness of mind of the testator, and the undue influence exercised over him, is brief, and is as follows: On August 3, 1907, the testator destroyed his first will and at the same time made the one in question. Mr. A. D. Morris, counsel in the case, drew both wills and testified that the testator was of sound mind, named his children in the order stated in the will, understood perfectly the nature and character of his property and where located, and directed its disposition in the terms stated in the will, and that the only change made in the last will from the first was the omission of George's name from the residuary clause in the last will, and gave him instead thereof $1. But Mr. Hayes, one of the attesting witnesses, testified that, according to his recollection, Mrs. Hess was one of the residuary legatees in the first will, and Mr. Walton testified that, according to his recollection, there were two daughters named in the first will as residuary legatees, and only one in the last.

For several years prior to the execution of the first will, John Eason and his wife Sarah, a daughter of the testator, resided on Mr. Current's farm, and the latter and his wife lived with them. The testator was very fond of Mrs. Eason, and was on friendly terms with all of his children except Mrs. Warren. It seems that he was especially fond of George, who was, as before stated, named in the former will as one of the residuary legatees.

The evidence for the contestants also tended to show that about July 26, 1907, the testator went to visit his daughter Melva Hess, who resided across the state line in Iowa. Their relations were cordial. He remained there two or three days, and while there met his wife who was returning from Ottumwa, where she had been visiting a daughter, Mrs. Lucas. On July 28th the testator and his wife returned to the home of John Eason, accompanied by Mrs. Hess, who visited with them a part of that day. His and her relations were also friendly, and he told her that he intended to visit her oftener than he had done in the past. That on July 30th William Current sent his son for the testator, who returned with the son and spent...