Godman v. Aulick

Decision Date12 November 1935
Citation87 S.W.2d 612,261 Ky. 268
PartiesGODMAN et al. v. AULICK et al.
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pendleton County.

The probate of the will of J. H. Godman was contested on appeal to the circuit court by Maude G. Aulick and others. From a judgment for contestants, Charles Godman and others contestees, appeal.

Reversed with directions to grant a new trial consistent with opinion.

A. H Barker, of Cynthiana, for appellants.

Rogers & Rogers, O. M. Rogers, and James Rogers, all of Covington for appellees.

RICHARDSON Justice.

The will of J. H. Godman, which was probated on February 22, 1933, by an order of the county court of Pendleton county, was contested on an appeal to the Pendleton circuit court, by Maude Aulick, Claude Godman, James Godman, Jr., Lois Braun, and Donald Aulick, on the ground that the testator "did not have mind and memory sufficient to make and execute a valid will and was unduly influenced to execute it, but for the exercise of undue influence, he would not have executed it."

On the trial to a jury in the circuit court, the testimony in favor of the contestants and contestees was directed solely to the ground of mental incapacity of the testator. The testimony of the witnesses establishing the signing and publishing of the will in the manner and form required by the statutes is uncontradicted. The jury's verdict was that the paper introduced and identified by the attesting witnesses was not the will of J. H. Godman.

The contestees are here insisting that a verdict should have been directed for them, and if they are mistaken in this, the evidence is insufficient to sustain it. A large number of witnesses testified for the contestants, and a like number for the contestees. A number of the adult daughters and sons of J. H. Godman were witnesses of the contestants.

The substance of the testimony of the witnesses for the contestants is that J. H. Godman had been addicted to excessive use of intoxicants for 35 or more years. It was his habit to indulge in "drinking sprees" for a week or two, or a month or two. When not under the influence of liquor, the evidence of both the contestants and the contestees shows that he was intelligent, energetic, industrious, and employed his time farming, and thus had accumulated an estate, though not large. He engaged in business until his death, but for a number of years next before it he did not as actively and vigorously employ his time and energy. He was 72 years old at the date of his death. He had no ailment of mind or body before his last illness, except that condition which was incident to his age and periodical drinking. He executed his will on the 14th day of March, 1929, about four years before his death, in the presence of J. J. Barton and Charles W. Thompson. Barton was a neighbor of J. H. Godman, and Charles W. Thompson was the cashier of the Pendleton Bank of Pendleton County. It was written with a pencil by Barton, at the home of Barton, in the presence, and at the request, of J. H. Godman. Its terms and provisions were dictated by Godman to Barton, and after it was written by him with pencil, it was read to, and approved by, Godman. Then it was copied on a typewriter by Barton, and carried by Barton and J. H. Godman to the Pendleton Bank, where it was signed by Godman in the presence of Barton and Thompson, and in turn signed by them as attesting witnesses in the presence of Godman. Barton is unequivocal in his statement that at the time the will was dictated by Godman, prepared and carried to the bank, and witnessed by him and Thompson, Godman was absolutely free from the influence of intoxicants. Thompson, who had been well acquainted with Godman for years, deposed that at the time the will was signed by Godman, and attested by him and Barton, he observed nothing indicating Godman was under the influence of intoxicants or not in the full possession of his normal mental faculties. The evidence shows that on the day the will was signed and published, Godman gave checks to others in payment of accounts he owed them. The witnesses of the contestants merely testified in a general way as to the frequency and habit of Godman drinking intoxicants to a state of drunkenness. All of them admitted that Godman, except when under the influence of intoxicants, was an intelligent, active, capable, successful farmer until he attained that age at which men generally slow down or lessen their activities.

Many of the contestants' witnesses, in answers to hypothetical questions, expressed his or her opinion that at the time Godman signed and published his will he did not have sufficient mental capacity "to know the natural objects of his bounty, his obligations to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Godman v. Aulick
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • November 12, 1935
  • Mays v. Mays
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • March 27, 1936
    ... ... 194 Ky. 385, 239 S.W. 455; Bodine v. Bodine, 241 Ky ... 706, 44 S.W.2d 840; Smith v. Smith, 243 Ky. 240, 47 ... S.W.2d 1036; Godman et al. v. Aulick et al., 261 Ky ... 268, 87 S.W.2d 612 ...          However, ... witnesses may describe actions and doings of a person, ... ...
  • Mays v. Mays
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • March 27, 1936
    ...239 S.W. 455; Bodine v. Bodine, 241 Ky. 706, 44 S.W. (2d) 840; Smith v. Smith, 243 Ky. 240, 47 S.W. (2d) 1036; Godman et al. v. Aulick et al., 261 Ky. 268, 87 S.W. (2d) 612. However, witnesses may describe actions and doings of a person, from which a court or a jury may determine whether a ......
  • Nugent v. Nugent's ex'R
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • January 12, 1940
    ...of this character has often been held insufficient to authorize a submission of the case to the jury. See Godman et al. v. Aulick et al., 261 Ky. 268, 87 S.W. (2d) 612, and the many authorities therein Father Aloysius, a Catholic priest, who talked with the testator some days before his dea......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT