Gibony v. Foster
Decision Date | 19 July 1910 |
Citation | 130 S.W. 314,230 Mo. 106 |
Parties | GIBONY et al. v. FOSTER et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; Jas. T. Neville, Judge.
Will contest by Oscar Gibony and another against Mary E. Foster and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
This action to contest the will of Sarah A. Gibony, late of Greene county, Mo., was instituted in the Greene county circuit court on April 30, 1904. The plaintiff Louis Gibony and the defendants are children of Sarah A. Gibony; the plaintiff Oscar Gibony being a grandchild of said Sarah A. Gibony. The petition alleges, first, that at the time Sarah A. Gibony executed the will in contest she was of unsound mind and incapable of comprehending her property and the natural objects of her bounty, and was incompetent to make a will; and, second, that said pretended will was procured by undue influence of Nancy C. Banfield over the testatrix. The answer of the defendants Mary E. Foster, Nancy C. Banfield, and George Gibony was a denial of the allegations of the petition. The will in contest bears date December 20, 1902. At the time of its execution Mrs. Gibony was 88 years of age. She died January 28, 1904, and the will was admitted to probate by the probate court of Greene county on February 3, 1904. The instrument involved in this contest is as follows:
At the time of the making of this will it is estimated that Mrs. Gibony was worth about $25,000. In the main Mrs. Gibony's property resulted from her active business life. She seems to have been left a widow about the time of the beginning of the Civil War. The testatrix lived near and in Springfield, Mo., from the time of the Civil War until her death. Upon the trial a vast amount of evidence was introduced, much of which was irrelevant and had no bearing whatever on the issues involved. Upon the part of the contestees the subscribing witnesses to the will, M. V. Ausherman and Charles W. Stoneman, as well as the scrivener, Mr. Massey, were introduced. Their testimony in substance was as follows:
M. V. Ausherman testified that he resided in Springfield, and had been engaged in the meat and grocery business on Campbell street for 10 years, and was tenant of Mrs. Gibony; that he knew her, and that she lived above the property he rented from her, and was living there at the time she executed the will in contest, and had been living there three or four years; that in December, 1902, he was requested to act as a witness to her will, and that she stated that it was her will, and that in his judgment at the time she was capable of making a will; that she signed the will by mark in his presence, and that Mrs. Gibony requested him to sign the will as a witness; that he went to Mrs. Gibony's room at the request of Mr. Massey; that he did not see Mr. Stoneman sign the will; that part of the will was read in his presence by Mr. Massey; that he had frequently seen Mrs. Banfield at Mrs. Gibony's rooms about the time of the making of the will, and thought perhaps she lived there at that time; that he generally paid his rent to Mrs. Gibony, but had paid it to Mrs. Banfield some few times; that when Mrs. Gibony lived on Jefferson street, three or four months prior to her death, he visited her three, four or maybe a half dozen times, and she always recognized him; she had no certain time to collect her rent but "she never forgot it"; that if she did not come to collect rent the first of the month she came during the month and sometimes he would pay her for two months; she remembered that there were two months due. "She hardly ever made any mistake like that." She remained above my store about six or seven months after she executed her will. "In the last year that I rented from Mrs. Gibony I paid her my rents; but who came after them, I think different people came after them." After she moved down on Jefferson street, "it seems to me she was by herself in a buggy some few times" to collect...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wood v. Wood
... ... consider and the court did right in directing a verdict for ... the defendants upon this issue." In Gibony v ... Foster, 230 Mo. 106, 130 S.W. 314, the court say that in ... Sehr v. Lindemann, supra, it was expressly ruled that, upon ... making out a ... ...
-
Frank v. Greenhall
... ... Schemme, 157 Mo. 1, 57 S.W. 526; Patton v. Shelton, 40 S.W. (2d) 711, 328 Mo. 631; Hahn v. Hammerstein, 272 Mo. 248, 198 S.W. 863; Gibony v. Foster, 230 Mo. 106, 130 S.W. 314; Sanford v. Holland, 276 Mo. 457, 207 S.W. 818; Fields v. Luck, 74 S.W. (2d) 35, 335 Mo. 765; Byrne v ... ...
-
Proffer v. Proffer
... ... (2d) 430, 296 S.W. 752; Spencer v. Spencer, 221 S.W. 63; Messick v. Warren, 217 S.W. 98; Hahn v. Hammerstein, 272 Mo. 248, 198 S.W. 836; Gibony v. Foster, 230 Mo. 106, 130 S.W. 322; Winn v. Grier, 217 Mo. 420, 117 S.W. 59; Weston v. Hanson, 212 Mo. 248, 111 S.W. 49; Sayre v. Trustees of ... ...
- Daggs v. McDermott