Downey v. Guilfoile

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BEACH, J.
• Citation: Downey v. Guilfoile, 93 Conn. 630, 107 A. 562 (Conn. 1919)
• Decision Date: 16 July 1919
• Parties: DOWNEY v. GUILFOILE et al.

107 A. 562

93 Conn. 630

DOWNEY v. GUILFOILE et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 16, 1919

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; John E. Keeler, Judge.

Will contest by Mary Downey against Annie Guilfoile, executrix of the last will of Thomas O'Neill, deceased, and others from a decree for proponents admitting the will to probate contestant appealed to the superior court, where verdict was directed for proponents, and contestant again appeals. No error.

William E. Thomas and Frank P. McEvoy, both of Waterbury, for appellant.

Charles S. Hamilton, of New Haven, and James E. McKnight, of Waterbury, for appellees.

BEACH, J.

The will was contested on the ground of undue influence, and the only question before us is whether the court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the proponent at the close of the contestant's case. On examination of the record we are satisfied that no error was committed. As the trial court observed, opportunity for the exercise of undue influence was proven, but there was no evidence that Annie Guilfoile, the executrix and residuary legatee, or her husband, either had or exercised any dominating influence over the testator, who appears to have had a strong will of his own.

It is conceded that no direct evidence of undue influence was adduced, and none was necessary, provided the foundation was laid for a reasonable inference that the will was not such as the testator would have made, if left entirely to his own discretion, and that his free agency and independence must have been overcome, so that he was constrained to do what he was unable to refuse and too weak to resist. St. Legers' Appeal, 34 Conn. 434, 442, 91 Am.Dec. 735. On the other hand the rule which dispenses with the necessity of direct proof of undue influence does not relieve the contestant from the burden of laying " a safe foundation of such material facts proven and inferences which fairly and convincingly lead to that conclusion." Hills v. Hart, 88 Conn. 394 397, 91 A. 257, 258.

This testator was ninety years old, and the will was executed about two months before his death. No mental weakness is testified to, and the evidence leaves the impression that up to the day of his death his mind was singularly clear and decided for so old a man. The contestant was his only daughter and sole heir at law. The executrix was his niece in whose home he had been living for about six months before his death. Both of these women were married, and there is nothing to show that they were not otherwise fairly well provided for. The will left sums of money amounting to $4,000 to...