Graham v. Courtright
Decision Date | 14 March 1917 |
Docket Number | 30275 |
Citation | 161 N.W. 774,180 Iowa 394 |
Parties | WILLIAM J. GRAHAM et al., Appellees, v. O. B. COURTRIGHT, Appellant |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
REHEARING DENIED FRIDAY, JUNE 22, 1917.
Appeal from Black Hawk District Court.--FRANKLIN C. PLATT, Judge.
ACTION to set aside the third paragraph of the will of Bessie Graham, as having been inserted through the alleged undue influence of the beneficiary therein, resulted in the verdict and judgment as prayed. The defendant appeals.
Reversed.
J. W Arbuckle, for appellant.
Mears & Lovejoy, for appellees.
Bessie Graham executed her will March 5th, and died March 17, 1913. She had never married, and was 74 years of age. She had been in good health until shortly before death, though she had become so fleshy tat it was difficult for her to get about. The will was admitted to probate April 25, 1913, and this action to set aside the third clause thereof was begun shortly afterwards. The will (1) directed the payment of debts, and (2) made a bequest of $ 5,000 to William J. Graham, to be paid in 15 months. The third clause read:
"To the long-time and faithful friend of my beloved father and my friend, the Hon. O. B. Courtright, I hereby in gratitude give and bequeath the sum of $ 5,000 to be paid to him by the executor hereof within 15 months from and after the probate hereof."
The residue of the estate, real and personal, was left to Theodore M. Graham, who was named as executor, without bond. The bequests were declared liens on the real estate. Theodore was a half brother, 10 or 12 years younger than decedent. Whether William was brother or half brother does not appear. Courtright drew the will, and the clause quoted is assailed only as having been inserted in consequence of undue influence exercised by him over testatrix. The jury, in so finding, accompanied their verdict with a statement denominating him "innocent of any charge of attempted fraud, but admit that he is the victim of a most unfortunate legal hypothesis which deprives him of an otherwise legitimate legacy."
Errors in ruling on the admissibility of evidence, in overruling motion to direct a verdict, and in instructions given, are assigned, and, as these are based on the evidence, the record may as well be stated at the outset. The acquaintance of Courtright and testatrix began when living with their parents on farms not far apart, in Grundy County. She continued there until about 1885. He began the practice of law in Parkersburg in 1878. Upon the death of her father, in 1888, she became administratrix of his estate, and employed Courtright as attorney to aid in its settlement. Thereafter, she lived at Cedar Falls until the death of her mother, when she returned for a short time to Parkersburg. Thereafter, she made her home for a time with the family of William at Cedar Falls, and later lived at the home of Gallagher in that place about 15 months. From October, 1912, until her death, she lived at the residence of Theodore Graham, at Waterloo. She had paid $ 1,500 toward its purchase, by Theodore, in order to have a home with him, and had paid him $ 300 besides, and, in addition thereto, $ 20 per month for board. She owned a farm of 160 acres, worth $ 24,000, and had $ 600 in money at the time of her death. Courtright had become a member of the firm of Courtright & Arbuckle at Waterloo in 1894, and had been in the active practice of his profession until 1911, when he retired, but occasionally attended to legal business thereafter. During all the years, they had met occasionally, she had visited at his home up to the time of his first wife's death, and after she came to Waterloo, he had called on her frequently with his wife, as well as on Graham and wife, the latter being his cousin. Their relations had always been cordial. They were friends. At the trial, Theodore testified that that, aside from being sick, he "did not know whether her mind was as good as it ever had been or not;" that she had said that, when she got sick, she wished the defendant to draw her will.
Shortly before noon on the day in question, Mrs. Graham telephoned Courtright that "Bessie is sick, and would like to see you." She had previously told him that testatrix would like to do something about her will. He called after lunch. Theodore testified that Bessie was sick in bed when he arrived; that he went to the sick room with him.
His wife, Effie Graham, corroborated her husband somewhat, by testifying:
On the same subject, the defendant testified as follows:
The witness then explained the reason for the suggestion that Theodore be not present, relating a conversation concerning difficulty between testatrix and W. J. Graham, which conversation Theodore and his wife denied having had, and proceeded:
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Olsson v. Pierson
... ... weren't you? A. Yes, I was.' ... As to ... relationship of attorney and client see Graham v. Courtright, ... 180 Iowa 394, 161 N.W. 774; Loder v. Whelpley, 111 N.Y. 239, ... 18 N.E. 874 ... In concluding ... that ... ...
-
Landry v. Oversen
...the rule. This does not change the burden of proof. That continues on the complaining party throughout the trial. See Graham v. Courtright, 180 Iowa, 394, 161 N. W. 774. The proof of ownership of the automobile at the time of the collision merely makes out prima facie that the automobile wa......
-
Landry v. Oversen
... ... This does not ... change the burden of proof. That continues on the complaining ... party throughout the trial. See Graham v ... Courtright, 180 Iowa 394, 161 N.W. 774. The proof of ... ownership of the automobile at the time of [187 Iowa 287] the ... collision merely ... ...
-
Baldwin v. Parsons
... ... This does not ... change the burden of proof. That continues on the complaining ... party throughout the trial. See Graham v ... Courtright, 180 Iowa 394, 161 N.W. 774. The proof of ... ownership of the automobile at the time of the collision ... merely makes out, ... ...