Heman v. Hartman

• Decision Date: 24 May 1905
• Citation: 189 Mo. 20,87 S.W. 947
• Parties: HEMAN v. HARTMAN et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

87 S.W. 947

189 Mo. 20.

HEMAN v. HARTMAN et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

May 24, 1905.

TRIAL — VOLUMINOUS INSTRUCTIONS — EFFECT.

Though, on a will contest, the instructions given covered 12 long, compactly set printed pages, making them entirely too large for digestion by the jury, a judgment against contestant would not be reversed, 8 of the pages being occupied by his instructions, and the verdict being clearly for the right party.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Wm. Zachritz, Judge.

Will contest over the will of Frederick Heman, deceased, and, from a judgment in favor of proponents, contestant, J. C. Heman, appeals. Affirmed.

Hickman P. Rodgers, for appellant. T. J. Rowe, for respondents.

VALLIANT, J.

A will contest. Frederick Heman died January 15, 1902, leaving a paper which was on January 21, 1902, duly admitted to probate as his will in the probate court of the city of St. Louis. The testator left six children, five sons and one daughter. The sons were men of mature age, three of them engaged in profitable business, and had accumulated a considerable fortune. The daughter was the youngest of the family, a married woman with two children. The testator left an estate worth about $175,000. The will in contest makes an unequal division of the property, giving to each of the three elder sons, of whom is the plaintiff, property valued at $1,116.66, to the fourth son $29,133.97, and to the fifth son $32,633.97, while to the daughter is given property valued at $100,294.97. There was also a legacy to the testator's brother valued at $3,000, one to his sister, $2,000, and several to charitable purposes, aggregating $6,000. At the time of his death the testator was 72 years and 6 months old, his wife had died about 10 years before, and after her death he requested his daughter to come with her family and live with him at his home, and they did so, and thus continued to the date of his death. The contest of the will is on two grounds: First, that the testator was not of sound mind; second, that the will was the result of undue influence exerted by the daughter and her husband over the testator.

On the part of the defendants, the proponents of the will, the testimony tended to show that Mr. Heman, the testator, called at the office of his son-in-law, Hartman, and told him that he wished to make his will, and that Dr. Thomas O'Reilly had advised him to get Mr. Vierling, trust officer in the Mississippi Valley Trust Company, to write it for him, and requested him, Hartman, to go with him to the trust company and introduce him to Mr. Vierling. Hartman did as requested, and left the testator as soon as he had introduced him. When they were alone, Mr. Heman told Mr. Vierling how he wanted to dispose of his estate. Vierling made notes of what was desired, and appointed an hour that afternoon for Mr. Heman to call or send for the will, which he said would be prepared by that time. Mr. Heman again went to Hartman's office, and requested him to call and get the will, and bring it to him in the grand stand of the Gentlemen's Driving Club in Forest Park, where he would be that afternoon. Hartman did as requested, delivered the paper he had received from Vierling to Mr. Heman, and the latter afterwards went alone to the office of Dr. Thomas O'Reilly, where he executed the will, Dr. Thomas O'Reilly and his brother, Dr. Richard O'Reilly, signing it as witnesses. Dr. Thomas O'Reilly had been the testator's personal physician for many years. After the will was executed it was delivered to the Mississippi Valley Trust Company, who retained it until after the death of the testator,...