Hoffman v. Hoffman
| Decision Date | 21 June 1906 |
| Citation | 78 N.E. 492,192 Mass. 416 |
| Parties | HOFFMAN v. HOFFMAN et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Frank H. Stewart, for appellants.
Robert M. Morse and H. H. Armington, for executrix.
Two issues were submitted to the jury in this case: (1) 'Was the testator of sound and disposing mind and memory?' and (2) 'Was the will procured by fraud and undue influence on the part of Effie Hoffman?' The jury answered both questions in the affirmative. At the close of the evidence the executrix asked the court to rule that there was no evidence tending to show that the will was procured by fraud and undue influence on the part of Effie Hoffman. The court declined so to rule and the case is here on exceptions by the executrix to the refusal to give the ruling thus requested. All of the evidence is reported.
We think that the ruling was right. There was no direct evidence that the will was procured by fraud and undue influence on the part of Mrs. Hoffman; but the jury had all the facts and circumstances before them and we cannot say as matter of law that the conclusion to which they came was unwarranted.
The executrix was the second wife of the testator. His first wife died in April, 1899, and he himself died in November, 1903. At the time of the marriage the executrix was 30 years old and he was 75. She lived in Nova Scotia with her father where the testator saw her in August, 1899, for an hour in the presence of others for the first and only time, so far as appears till he met her later in Boston. A month afterwards she received a letter from him proposing marriage. There had been no communication between them in the meantime. She answered it and afterwards came to Boston. She saw him about three weeks after her arrival and in December they became engaged and on the 23d of that month they were married. His children were neither invited to nor informed of the marriage. There was evidence tending to show that he was unattractive in person, and that she made inquiries or was informed about his property, and a jury would be warranted in finding that the marriage was a mercenary one on her part. If her motives were mercenary the exercise of undue influence on her part would be more readily inferred than if they were not. There was testimony tending to show that after his marriage the relations between the testator and his children and their families, and old friends, and his previously declared intentions and views underwent a great change. His son had been in business with him for twenty years and their relations had been pleasant and harmonious. Without any just cause, as it could have been found, the testator terminated this relation and left the son to look out for himself and treated him in other ways very differently from what he had before. Before the marriage the grandchildren were on affectionate terms with their grandfather and were in and out of his house, and frequently took their meals there. This ceased after the marriage. Calls made by the son's wife were not returned, although the relations between her and the testator continued pleasant. The intimacy between the testator and an old and intimate friend, a Mr. Ships gradually waned after the marriage without any cause on Ships' part, and when he spoke to the testator about it he said that his wife was not well-disposed towards Ships' wife, showing or tending to show the influence which she had acquired over him. Before the marriage the testator declared repeatedly that he would not make a will, and that his property should go according to the law and his children should have it. He promised his first wife in her last sickness that he would see that the children had it. After the marriage he made two wills the only difference between them being...
To continue reading
Request your trial