Hardekopf v. Mumm (In re Mumm's Estate)

• Decision Date: 19 April 1929
• Docket Number: No. 27110.,27110.
• Parties: In re MUMM'S ESTATE. HARDEKOPF et al. v. MUMM et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

177 Minn. 226
225 N.W. 102

In re MUMM'S ESTATE.
HARDEKOPF et al.
v.
MUMM et al.

No. 27110.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 19, 1929.

Appeal from District Court, Douglas County; C. R. Magney, Judge.

Application by William Hardekopf and another for the probate of the will of George Mumm, deceased, contested by Claus Mumm and others. Finding in favor of proponents on appeal to the district court. From an order denying motions to amend the findings and for a new trial, the contestants appeal. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

The findings that the testator was of sound mind and free from undue influence when he executed his will are sustained by the evidence.

A beneficiary under a will may give conversations with the testator for the purpose of laying a foundation to testify as to the testator's mental condition.

[225 N.W. 102]

Smith & Callahan, of Minneapolis, and Leach & Swore, of Alexandria, for appellants.

Constant Larson, of Alexandria, and Roger L. Dell, of Fergus Falls, for respondents.

TAYLOR, C.

George Mumm, a resident of Douglas county for some 50 years, died March 12, 1926, at the age of 76 years. His will, executed October 13, 1925, was contested by his heirs at law on the ground that he lacked sufficient mental capacity to make a will, and that the execution of the will had been procurred through the undue influence of William Hardekopf and Bertha Hardekopf, the beneficiaries therein. The probate court disallowed it. The proponents appealed to the district court. That court submitted two questions to a jury, (1) whether the testator had sufficient mental capacity to make a will, and (2) whether its execution was procured by undue influence, which answered the first in the negative and the second in the affirmative. On motion of the proponents the court set aside the verdict and granted a new trial, saying that the evidence in support of the will did not seem to have been given proper consideration by the jury. The second trial was before another judge without a jury. He found that the testator was of sound mind and free from undue influence, and directed that the will be admitted to probate. This judge having resigned shortly after filing his decision, a motion to amend the findings and a motion for a new trial was made before a third judge. Both motions were denied, and the contestants appealed.

[1] George Mumm acquired a farm in Leaf Valley in Douglas county 50 years ago or more. Shortly thereafter he married, and he and his wife lived in a two-room log house on the farm until removed to a hospital as stated later. While he seems to have built a substantial barn and perhaps other buildings, the original log cabin remained their dwelling house. They had no children. For 30 or 40 years before her death, Mrs. Mumm was insane and at two different periods had been in the hospital for the insane. Apparently about 1904 Mr. Mumm took her from the hospital, and thereafter the two lived alone in the log cabin. All the evidence is to the effect that he was strongly attached to his wife and insisted on keeping her with him. About 1919, Mumm became crippled and thereafter rented his farm, apparently reserving the buildings and garden. A neighbor named Freudenberg assisted him from time to time in preparing the garden, in caring for his stock, and in business matters. In the early part of May, 1925, Mumm fell in the yard. Freudenberg who was present assisted him into the house and placed him on the pallet which he occupied as a bed. Freudenberg notified Claus Mumm, a brother who resided in Minneapolis, that George was ill. Claus,

[225 N.W. 103]

with Doctor Schmidt, a nephew who also resided in Minneapolis, drove to the farm and endeavored to persuade George to go to a hospital, but he refused saying that Freudenberg...