Hanson v. Hanson (In re Larson's Estate)
| Citation | 170 N.W. 348,141 Minn. 373 |
| Decision Date | 10 January 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 21020.,21020. |
| Parties | In re LARSON'S ESTATE. HANSON v. HANSON. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Douglas County; John A. Roeser, Judge.
Proceedings by Aage Hanson for the probate of the will of Bodil Larson, deceased, contested by Hannah Hanson. The probate court disallowed the will, and from a judgment of the district court, allowing the will, the contestant appeals. Affirmed.
This is a contested will case. The evidence sustains a finding that the testatrix had sufficient mental capacity to make a will and was not subject to undue influence.
A signature to a will, imperfectly made, is a valid legal signature, if the name can without difficulty be made out, and it is written by the testatrix voluntarily and with knowledge of the fact that she is signing a will.
There is evidence that, immediately after the testatrix signed the will, the witnesses subscribed their names in a room adjoining the one in which the testatrix lay in bed and but a few feet from her; that the view was unobstructed and the act of signing could be plainly seen by testatrix if she looked. Held sufficient proof that the witnesses subscribed in the presence of the testatrix, whether she actually saw them sign or not.
This was also sufficient attestation. Attestation presupposes an execution of the will or an acknowledgment of it in the presence of the witnesses and a publication of the will as such, and it certifies to the facts necessary to constitute execution and publication; but formality in such matters is not required. Constant Larson and Gunderson & Leach, all of Alexandria, for appellant.
W. F. Donohue, of Melrose, for respondent.
[1] 1. Bodil Larson, 78 years old, died at Alexandria, Minn., March 17, 1917. She had been married and divorced. Her only child died some years before. Appellant, a sister, was the nearest relative surviving. The sisters had evidently become estranged. Respondent is a married man, about 35 years old. Both he and deceased were natives of Denmark. When respondent was a boy on a farm, deceased knew him well. In 1916 deceased was living alone. She had considerable property and she conceived the idea of having some one come to live with her to take care of her in her old age under a promise of remembrance in her will. She proposed such an arrangement to a neighbor. She told him that--
‘Those that came and took care of her would have all that she had, because * * * her relatives should not have a thing; she would rather dig it down.’
In June, 1916, respondent was living on a farm in Wisconsin. Deceased wrote him as follows:
After some correspondence, respondent went to Alexandria and arranged to accept her proposition and in November, 1916, moved his family to Alexandria and went to live with deceased. Later she deeded her real estate to him with an agreement on his part to support her during her life. On March 12, 1917, she undertook to make a will giving to respondent all her personal property and money, amounting to several thousand dollars. The probate of this will is contested in this proceeding. The probate court disallowed the will; the district court allowed it; contestant appealed.
The briefs raise the question of mental capacity and undue influence. There is ample evidence to sustain the finding of the court adverse to contestant on both points.
2. The questions most urged on the oral argument were: First, that the will was not properly signed; and, second, that it was not properly attested.
We think the will was properly signed. The will was prepared in the forenoon and handed to deceased before noon. She was then sitting up in bed. She had it with her until about 4 o'clock. Then the two witnesses came to her home and the will was shown to them. As they entered the room respondent handed her back the will on a book. One witness testifies that respondent said: ‘Here are the witnesses to the will now.’ The other witness testifies that respondent said: ‘Now the witnesses are here; now we are ready to sign the will.’ On cross-examination he testified that respondent said: ‘Now we are ready to sign; are you willing to sign it?’ All agreed that deceased answered simply: ‘Ya.’ She was sitting up in bed supported by pillows. The signature, such as it is, was written by her with only this assistance: Respondent took hold of her sleeve when she started to write. He did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial