Gurley v. Park

• Decision Date: 23 November 1893
• Docket Number: 16,377
• Citation: 35 N.E. 279,135 Ind. 440
• Parties: Gurley et al. v. Park
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

35 N.E. 279

135 Ind. 440

Gurley et al. v. Park

No. 16,377

Supreme Court of Indiana

November 23, 1893

From the Morgan Circuit Court.

The judgment is affirmed.

C. G Renner, for appellants.

A. M Cunning, for appellee.

OPINION

Howard, J.

This was an action to set aside the last will of Mary B. Park, the complaint alleging unsoundness of mind and undue influence.

On the overruling of a demurrer to the complaint, there was an answer filed, admitting the execution and probate of the will, but denying the other allegations of the complaint.

There were two trials before a jury. On the first trial the jury disagreed. On the last trial there was a verdict for the appellee, setting aside the will.

Mary B Park was a widow, and the appellee is her only child. The appellants are her nephew and niece. The errors discussed relate wholly to the evidence.

W. R. Harrison, a witness for the appellee, testified as to divorce proceedings brought at one time by Mary B. Park against her husband, detailing her charges against him with a view to showing her mental condition at that time. It is objected that the pleadings in that case are the original and best evidence, and should be produced, or their absence accounted for. An inspection of this testimony shows that it related to the acts, conduct and language of Mary B. Park in court, rather than to her pleadings. There was also evidence given by the witness from which the court might infer that the papers referred to had been destroyed by fire.

It is objected that the court allowed evidence showing that the son of the testatrix had a wife and child to support, and was in straightened circumstances, being worth not over five or six hundred dollars at the time his mother's will was made. We think this evidence was competent to go to the jury as affecting the question of the soundness of the mind of the testatrix. The fact that a mother disinherits her only child, and that he is needy, with a young family on his hands, are circumstances which a jury may well consider in determining the question of her sanity. While it is true that a person may disinherit his kindred, and give his property to whom he sees fit, yet such a disposition of property being unusual, the jury may rightfully examine into its reasonableness as affecting the question of unsoundness of mind in the testator, and with this view may look into the situation of his family connections and property. Bundy v. McKnight, Exec., 48 Ind. 502; Lamb v. Lamb, 105 Ind. 456, 5 N.E. 171; Clark v. Fisher, 1 Paige Chancery (N. Y.), 171.

Dr. Charles M. Gravis was the attending physician of the testatrix during her last illness, and was present on the day of her death, at the time she made her will. Appellants offered to prove by this physician, as a witness, "from all his knowledge and information, and conversations he has had with her, and his acquaintance with her, and from what he saw and heard and knew of her there, that she was then a person of sound mind." The ruling of the court on this offer, as stated in the record, was: "There is no legal representative of Mrs. Park in this case because there is no administrator or executor. I shall sustain the objection, that the physician was there in his professional position." This ruling is in harmony with the uniform interpretation given in our decisions upon the statute protecting communications received by a physician from his patient. The policy of the law is to make the relation confidential and sacred. Only the patient himself, or, in case of his death, his legal representative, may waive the seal of secrecy and confidence.

In Heuston v. Simpson, 115 Ind. 62, 17 N.E 261, it was said: "The law forbids the physician from disclosing what he learns in the sick room, no matter by what method he acquires his knowledge." See...