Harrel v. Harrel

• Decision Date: 28 September 1864
• Citation: 62 Ky. 203
• Parties: Harrel, etc., v. Harrel, etc.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

62 Ky. 203

Harrel, etc., v. Harrel, etc.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

September 28, 1864

1. Gross inequality in the dispositions made by a will, where no reason for it is suggested in the will itself, requires satisfactory evidence that it was the free and deliberate offspring of a rational, self-poised, and clearly disposing mind.

2. See the opinion for the facts showing incapacity on the part of the testator, and the undue influence exerted by his wife.

APPEAL FROM THE DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.

W ANTHONY, G. H. YEAMAN and J. W. KINCHELOE, for appellants.

OPINION

ROBERTSON JUDGE.

A paper purporting to be the last will of William Harrel, deceased after probate in the county court of Daviess, was, on an appeal to the circuit court, set aside by the verdict of a jury and the judgment of that court. From that judgment the propounders of the will appeal to this court.

When he acknowledged the testamentary document, the decedent, about seventy years old, was confined to his bed by an inflammatory disease, which appeared very distressing, and made him frequently both " drowsy" and " flighty," and of which he died about two days after the attestation.

At his death he owned the homestead tract of land, worth $10,000 ten slaves, valued at $4,000; stock worth $1,125; other personalty, estimated at $1,673; and $682 cash in hand; and there is no proof that he owed any debts. He left four children and some grandchildren, none of whom (children or grandchildren) had been advanced by him.

The testamentary provisions are simple and short; and give to his widow, whom he had married not more than eight years before and to his son James, his whole estate of every kind during her life, remainder to said James, excepting only the slaves, which were to be equally divided between James and his brother Jonathan, sisters Hannah Humphrey and Mary Ann Patrick, and the children of a deceased sister, Lydia Beard.

For such gross inequality no reason is suggested in the document itself or by the proof on the trial. The testator had an unquestionable power to make such a will. But its apparent unreasonableness requires satisfactory evidence that it was the free and deliberate offspring of a rational, self-poised, and clearly disposing mind. And all this has not, in our opinion, been shown by the testimony with sufficient assurance.

No witness expressed the opinion that he had not a disposing mind, and the subscribing witnesses, and most others, testified to some facts conducing to the abstract conclusion that he had. But all of them prove other facts, conflicting in a greater or less degree with that conclusion; and these we will summarily notice in two classes--1st. As illustrative of incapacity; and, 2d. As indicative of extraneous influence controlling his enfeebled and disturbed mind.

1. He was often in a state of stupor, and, when roused, was generally flighty; but soon, while awake, became apparently rational. He dictated the substance of the legatory provisions as written. But ...