Davenport v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 25 November 1902 |
| Parties | DAVENPORT v. JOHNSON et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Frederick L. Greene and Wm. A. Davenport, for appellants.
Waterman & Martin and Samuel D. Conant, for executor.
This is an appeal from the allowance of the will and codicil of one Alma J. Davenport. The case was submitted to a jury on the usual issues, and the jury found against the will and codicil on the issue of fraud and undue influence, and for the will and codicil on the issues relating to soundness of mind and to the understanding and purpose with which the instruments were executed by the testatrix. The case is here on exceptions by the executor to the admission of certain evidence and to certain rulings and instructions.
The first exception relates to the admission of evidence of the amount of the estate of the husband of the testatrix. There were also other exceptions of the same general nature. These exceptions may be considered together. We think that the evidence was rightly admitted. One William W. Davenport, one of the persons charged with exercising fraud and undue influence, was the principal residuary legatee under the husband's will. He was also sole residuary legatee under the will and codicil of the testatrix, and as such would receive a large sum if they were upheld. The widow did not waive the provisions of her husband's will, and there was testimony tending to show that when she executed the will and codicil she had a brother and nephews and nieces and grandnephews and grandnieces living, and that they were all of limited means, and that for aught that appeared, she was on friendly relations with all of them. In passing on the questions of the soundness of mind of the testatrix, and whether undue influence had been exercised over her, the jury had a right to consider whether the will was, under all the circumstances, a reasonable will and one such as a person of sound mind and free from undue influence would have made. The fact that the will and codicil were or might be found to be unreasonable in the opinion of the jury would not of itself justify them in finding that it was the product of an unsound mind or of undue influence. But as bearing upon the question whether the will was a reasonable will, and such as a person of sound mind and free from undue influence would have made evidence not only of the amount of her own estate was competent, but also evidence of the amount of her husband's estate, and of the amount to which William W. Davenport was or would be entitled under the husband's will. If he was entitled to receive under the husband's will a large amount, we cannot say that the jury were not justified in finding, if they did so find, that the more reasonable explanation of the large bequest to him in the will and codicil of the testatrix was not that it was procured by undue influence on his part over her. There was testimony from which the jury could have found that both he and the testatrix knew of the contents of the husband's will before his death, and at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tarricone v. Cummings
...amount to undue influence voiding the will, without proof of specific acts of the advisor at the time the will was made. Davenport v. Johnson, 182 Mass. 269, 65 N.E. 392.' In Jones v. Simpson, 171 Mass. 474, 50 N.E. 940, a decree of the Probate Court disallowing a proposed will on the groun......
-
Old Colony Trust Co. v. Cola
...unreasonable, was not of itself sufficient to show that it was the result of undue influence or unsoundness of mind. Davenport v. Johnson, 182 Mass. 269, 65 N. E. 392. The jury were fully and accurately instructed on this point. There was no error in what was said to the jury concerning the......
-
Smith v. Smith
...to fraud or undue influence. But burden of proof does not shift. Hoffman v. Hoffman, 192 Mass.416, 78 N. E. 492;Davenport v. Johnson, 182 Mass. 269, 65 N. E. 392;Jones v. Simpson, 171 Mass. 474, 476, 50 N. E. 940;Baldwin v. Parker, 99 Mass. 79, 96 Am. Dec. 697. This is a sound rule. The bur......
-
Tarr v. Tucker
...event highly confidential and fiduciary, and business dealings between them are discouraged by the policy of the law. Davenport v. Johnson, 182 Mass. 269, 273, 65 N. E. 392;Hayes v. Moulton, 194 Mass. 157, 165, 80 N. E. 215. He is held to a conspicuous degree of fidelity and is forbidden to......