Entwistle v. Meikle

• Decision Date: 17 June 1899
• Citation: 54 N.E. 217,180 Ill. 9
• Parties: ENTWISTLE et al. v. MEIKLE et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

180 Ill. 9

54 N.E. 217

ENTWISTLE et al.

v.MEIKLE et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 17, 1899.

Appeal from circuit court, Ford county; G. W. Patton, Judge.

Suit by Thomas Entwistle and others against Elizabeth Meikle and others to set aside the alleged will of James Entwistle. Decree for defendants, and complainants appeal. Affirmed.Sample & Morrissey and Cloud & Moffett, for appellants.

T. F. Donovan and W. R. Hunter, for appellees.

This was a bill in chancery filed October 14, 1898, in the circuit court of Ford county, by Thomas Entwistle, James Entwistle, and the children of John Entwistle, deceased, to set aside the will of James Entwistle, deceased. Thomas Entwistle and James Entwistle are sons and the children of John Entwistle. The other complainants are children of a deceased son of the testator. The defendants are Elizabeth Meikle, a daughter, and George Entwistle and William Henry Entwistle, also sons of the testator. The bill charges that the will was executed and attested on May 31, 1894; that the testator died on the 17th day of March, 1898; that the will was thereafter probated in the county court of Ford county on the 2d day of May, 1898; that said James Entwistle was 91 years of age at the time of the execution of the will; that he was then in his dotage, and his mind and memory had become so impaired as to render him wholly incapable of making a will or any just and proper distribution of his estate; that, for several years prior to his death, the deceased had made his home with his daughter, Elizabeth Meikle, his wife being dead; that she exercised a great influence over her father, to such an extent that she obtained from him almost his entire income; that John A. Montelius, executor of said purported will, was his confidential agent and adviser, and exercised an undue influence over him; that their joint influence was so great that the friends of the deceased applied for and obtained the appointment of a conservator of his property, and that by some means Montelius was appointed conservator; that Montelius, for the purpose of enriching himself, drafted the will, and provided that a large quantity of the real estate should be sold by the executor; that at the time of drafting the will Montelius took with him one John F. Earl, who was under his control and bidding, to attest as a witness the said will; that the will was dictated by Montelius; that the testator did not know its contents or understand the same; that George and William Henry left minor children; and that, for a long time next prior to the time of making said purported will, the said James Entwistle was in an enfeebled condition of body and mind, and susceptible to the undue influences then exercised by said Elizabeth Meikle and said Montelius, and was incapable of exercising any volition whatever. The bill prays that said instrument in writing and the probate thereof may be set saide and declared null and void, and not the last will and testament of James Entwistle, deceased. The answer of the defendants admits the execution and probate of the will, the death of the testator, and that his age was about 91 at the time of its execution; denies that the deceased was of unsound mind, but avers he was of sound mind; denies the exercise of undue influence, but admits that shortly before his death a conservator was appointed at the solicitation of the resident children of the deceased; denies that John F. Earl was under the control of John A. Montelius, and also denies that at the time of making said will the deceased was under any constraint. A guardian ad litem was appointed for the minor defendants, and answer was filed by their guardian. The question as to whether the writing produced in evidence was the last will of James Entwistle or not was submitted to a jury, who found by their verdict that he was of sound mind and memory, and that the will produced in evidence was his last will and testament. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and the court below entered a decree in accordance with the verdict of the jury, and further ordered that the bill of complaint be dismissed for want of equity, and that complainants pay the costs of suit. From that decree the complainants have appealed to this court. The will of James Entwistle bequeaths to his sons John, of Chatsworth, Ill., and James, of the state of Washington, each one dollar, ‘they having received in my lifetime their share of property, and are not entitled to any more.’ To Thomas he gave a life estate in 80 acres of land in Ford county, to be equally divided among his (Thomas') children, should any survive him, but, should he die without children surviving, then directs that the 80 acres be sold, and the proceeds be equally divided among the children of his daughter, Elizabeth Meikle, and the children of his sons George and William Henry Entwistle, share and share alike. To his daughter, Elizabeth Meikle, he gave a life estate in a quarter section of land, and at her death to be equally divided among her surviving children, and, in case none survive her, then directs that the property be sold, and the proceeds be equally divided among the surviving children of his sons Thomas, George, and Henry Entwistle, share and share alike. To his son George he gave a life estate in a quarter section of land in Livingston county, to be equally divided among his surviving children, and, in case he should die without any surviving him, then that the property be sold, and the proceeds be equally divided among the surviving children of Thomas Entwistle and William Henry Entwistle, and the children of his daughter, Elizabeth Meikle, share and share alike. To his son William Henry he gave a life estate in a quarter section of land, to be equally divided among his surviving children, but, should none survive him, then he directs that the property be sold, and the proceeds be equally divided among the surviving children of Thomas and George and the children of his daughter, Elizabeth Meikle, share and share alike; and, lastly, provides that, should any other real or personal property remain, the same be sold, and the proceeds be equally divided among his children Elizabeth Meikle and George and William Henry Entwistle. He further provided that none of his children should file any bill against his estate for board or any attention given him, as he had fully compensated them in his lifetime. He then appointed John A. Montelius, of Piper City, Ill., as executor.

CRAIG, J. (after stating the facts).

The principal question to be determined on this record is whether the evidence sustains the verdict fo the jury that the testator was of sound mind and memory at the time of the execution of the will. There is no evidence in the record to sustain the charge of undue influence, and it appears to have been abandoned. It appears that the deceased, James Entwistle, came and settled with his family on some raw land in Ford county, five or six miles from Piper City, in the year 1868. He had a family of six children. Two, John and James, were children by his first wife, and four, George, William Henry, Thomas, and his daughter, Mrs. Elizabeth Meikle, were children by his second wife. He was a man physically strong and robust, and accumulated property and left an estate worth over $40,000. In 1880 the wife of James Entwistle died, and he then went to live with his widowed daughter, Mrs. Meikle, and her children, who lived on a farm near her father. In 1891 they moved to Piper City, where he purchased a home, and where he and Mrs. Meikle and her children lived until his death. The two sons George and Henry resided on the farm of James Entwistle until 1893, when they went to Chicago, but returned after about three years, and farmed again a portion of the farm until their father's death. The sons John, James, and Thomas never lived on the farm; Thomas residing in New York, James in a Western state, and John in Chatsworth, Ill. The evidence shows that the testator transacted his own business, although he consulted at times with John A. Montelius, a banker, about his business matters, after removing to Piper City.

A large number of witnesses were introduced by the proponents and by the contestants, and, as is usually the case, there is a conflict in the evidence, and yet a careful reading of the testimony of the witnesses on the part of the proponents convinces us that the verdict of the jury is sustained by the evidence. The will was executed and attested May 31, 1894, and the testator died March 17, 1898. Neighbors who had lived near him for years, and saw him frequently, testify that he was a man of good judgment, and intelligent, and that they noticed no difference in his mental condition during the years 1893, 1894, and 1895, and even up to 1896. The subscribing witnesses to the will both testified. John F. Earl says his mental condition was good. Rohrback, the other subscribing witness, says that in 1892, 1893, and 1894 his physical condition was good. He said: ‘I think his mind was sufficiently clear to know how many farms and children he had, and could express a desire that certain children should have certain farms. It is my judgment he had that quantity and quality of mental capacity.’ The following witnesses also testified for the proponents: James McBride, a retired farmer, and who owned a store in Piper City for about 18 months from 1893, and sold out in 1895, said that James Entwistle came there frequently to buy things for himself; that he was a pretty close dealer; that he bought with good judgment, and looked at things very carefully; that his dealings in the store continued on and off while he was in business; that in the evenings he would get into his buggy, and they would ride around; that he talked about lands and the price of crops and rents, etc.; that his physical condition seemed right hardy and robust; that he seemed to be intelligent and all right; that he did...