Dye v. Young

• Decision Date: 18 December 1880
• Citation: 55 Iowa 433,7 N.W. 678
• Parties: DYE AND OTHERS v. YOUNG AND OTHERS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

55 Iowa 433

7 N.W. 678

DYE AND OTHERS

v.YOUNG AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed December 18, 1880.

Appeal from Linn circuit court.

A paper purporting to be the last will and testament of Joseph Dye, deceased, was presented to the Linn circuit court for probate. Mary A. Logan and Lucinda D. Young, children, and Warren H. Smith, a grandchild, of Joseph Dye, objected to the admission of the instrument to probate on the ground that it was procured by undue influence of interested persons, and that Joseph Dye, at the time of the execution of the instrument, was not of sound mind and memory. The question was submitted to a jury, and the following special verdict was returned: “ First. Was Joseph Dye, at the time of the execution of the paper purporting to be his last will and testament, of sound mind and memory sufficient for the transaction of business requiring thought and deliberation? We, the jury, say, yes. Second. Was the execution of said instrument procured by the undue influence of other persons? We, the jury, say, no. Third. Was the will signed by the deceased, Joseph Dye, after it was written and read over to him, and witnessed by Edward Knowlton and E. P. Taylor writing their names as witnesses thereto? We, the jury, say, yes. Fourth. Was the deceased, Joseph Dye, of sound mind at the time he signed the will before you? We, the jury, say, yes.” The contestants moved the court to set aside this verdict. The court overruled the motion, and ordered that the will be admitted to probate as valid and illegal. The contestants appeal.J. B. Young, for contestants.

J. C. Davis, for proponents.

DAY, J.

1. Joseph Dye, at the time of his death, was 71 years old. The will was executed on the day before he died, when he was physically very weak, and suffering great pain from his disease, which was an affection of the lungs. The will bequeaths the home farm, consisting of 200 acres, to Miranda Dye, his second wife, and to his two sons, Frank and Charles, who are minors. It gives to his two married daughters, Lucinda Young and Mary Logan, $400 each; to Cynthia G. Logan, $200; to George and Harlan Smith, and the heirs at law of William Dickens, his grandchildren, $100 each. Against the objection of contestants one E. P. Taylor was permitted to testify to a conversation which he had with Joseph Dye about 18 months before his death, as follows: “I am getting to be an old man and I have never made any disposition of my property yet. I mean to do it soon. I want to provide liberally for my wife and the two younger children. As I have done something for the older children I want to do something more than make matters even. My two younger children are weakly.” The witness was also permitted to testify to a conversation, substantially the same, with Joseph Dye about 12 months before he died.

One Aaron Taylor, Joseph Dye's hired hand, was permitted, against the objection of contestants, to testify as follows: “I heard him talk about the matter at different times. He told me he intended to have his will made in time, or there would be no peace after his death. He said he did not calculate to give the older children so much as the rest. He had helped them some time ago.” The admission of this evidence was assigned as error. Under the circumstances we think it was not improperly admitted. One of the objections to the probate of the will is that it was procured by undue influence of interested parties. The inequality in the bequests is a circumstance which would probably, in the minds of the jury, bear upon the question. The fact that...