Holbrook v. Seagrave

• Decision Date: 03 July 1917
• Citation: 228 Mass. 26,116 N.E. 889
• Parties: HOLBROOK v. SEAGRAVE et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

228 Mass. 26

116 N.E. 889

HOLBROOK

v.SEAGRAVE et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

July 3, 1917.

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Worcester County.

Will offered for probate by Louisa S. Holbrook, executrix, contested by Mary J. Seagrave and others. Verdict for proponent, and contestants except. Exceptions sustained.

At the close of the evidence, the appellants requested the court to instruct the jury as follows:

(8) ‘It is for the jury to say how much weight should be given to the testimony of the attorney who drew the will and who appears to have been the only person, other than the testatrix, who had any opportunity to know its contents at the time of execution, and the jury may consider the interest, if any, which said attorney has in the case, and it may take into consideration who engaged him as attorney prior to the drawing of the will as well as the fact that he appeared in the probate court for the proponent and has continued to actively engage as counsel for said testatrix up to the present time.’

(9) ‘Although the law does not require that a will be read by or to the person executing it, the burden is upon the proponents of the will to prove, by competent evidence, that the contents of the will were known to and approved by the person executing it at the time it was executed as a will, and the jury has a right to give to the evidence upon this point offered by the attorney who drew the will such weight as they may find it entitled to and may consider in reaching their conclusion the interest of the said attorney in sustaining said will.’

(10) ‘The court instructs the jury that, in determining the question of the existence or nonexistence of undue influence operating upon the mind of the said Harriette A. Whitmore at the time of the execution of the alleged will, the jury should take into consideration the mental and physical condition of the said Harriette A. Whitmore at and before the alleged signing thereof; that the jury are the sole judges as to whether any undue influence was present and operated upon the mind of the testatrix when she signed the alleged, will; and in determining the question of the existence of undue influence the jury may take into consideration the weakened condition of the testatrix and may consider that a person suffering from disease and exhaustion may be influenced by others who bear towards her a position of trust and confidence and with whom she may be in close association; that the failure to afford all the relatives of the said Harriette A. Whitmore an opportunity to see or communicate with her before the signing of said alleged will, and any and all other facts in evidence in the case which the jury may believe in any way establishes the existence of undue influence.’

(11) ‘The court instructs the jury that the law watches with jealousy the transactions between a physician and his patient; that such relations are confidential relations, and afford in the eye of the law an opportunity and temptation on the part of the physician to take advantage thereof; that where a patient writes a will which provides for a benefit to the family of the physician, and especially when such physician also occupies, with respect to his patient, a position of personal friendship and confidence, the presumption of law is that such physician has exercised over his patient an undue influence; and such presumption of law also exists, whether the relations of friendship and confidence exist or not, and such presumptions are of evidential value.’

(12) ‘The court instructs the jury that if they believe from the evidence that Dr. Silas P. Holbrook, husband of the proponent, Louisa S. Holbrook, was one of the medical advisers of the said decedent, Harriette A. Whitmore, and that at the time the alleged will was drafted was one of the attending physicians of the said deceased, and that the fact that the said husband of said proponent was the physician of the said Harriette A. Whitmore, in any way influenced the said Harriette A. Whitmore, directly or indirectly, to make any provision in said instrument for the said proponent, Louisa S. Holbrook, then it is the duty of the jury to find that the said instrument is without force and effect, and the jury will thereupon find against the proponent.’Ernest H. Vaughan, Edward T. Esty, and Jay Clark, Jr., all of Worcester, for proponent.

Morrison & Davenport, of Worcester, and Arther E. Seagrave, of Boston, for contestants.

DE COURCY, J.

Harriette A. Witmore died October 17, 1915; and this is a contest over her will, which was executed on September 28, 1915. The trial by jury in the Supreme Judicial Court, was on the usual issues of execution, soundness of mind and undue influence. The verdict sustained the will, and the case is before us on exceptions taken by the contestants in the course of the trial.

I. There were seven exceptions relating to the admission of evidence. The first was to the refusal to exclude from the witness stand the attorney who drew up the will, on the ground that he had made the opening statement to the jury. While such a practice by an attorney is not to be...