In re Blood's Estate

• Citation: 19 A. 770,62 Vt. 359
• Parties: In re BLOOD'S ESTATE.
• Decision Date: 12 April 1890
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Vermont

19 A. 770

62 Vt. 359

In re BLOOD'S ESTATE.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Windsor.

April 12, 1890.

Exceptions from Windsor county court.

This was a proceeding for the establishment of the will of Henry Blood, which was contested on the ground of the mental incapacity of the testator. Upon trial there was verdict and judgment for the proponent, and contestants except.

The proponent was the wife, and the contestants the mother and sisters, of the testator. The testator and proponent were married in July, 1886, and the will was executed April, 1888. The marriage of the testator was very distasteful to the contestants, who refused to recognize the proponent as a member of the family. There was no evidence tending to show that the testator entertained feelings of hostility towards the contestants. The testator was addicted to the excessive use of alcohol, and died of alcoholism induced thereby; and the evidence of the contestants tended to show that this disease was allied to insanity, and would occasion violent antipathies in its victim towards those with whom he was upon the most friendly terms. The contestants offered the depositions of the following persons, from which the following questions and answers were excluded: Maud Sanderson. "Interrogatory 13. From your knowledge of your brother's conduct, habits, and mental condition, what do you say about his capacity in April, 1888, to make a will? Give your judgment, and reasons there for. Answer. Well, I should say he had no capacity whatever; and I believe, from my own experience, and from what I have heard from different members of my family who saw Henry in the last two years of his life, that he was most incompetent to draw up any will, unless taken, we may say, in a mood of maudlin imbecility,—a state which always followed the terrible sprees that he went on,—and using untiring persuasion and undue influence." Laura S. Converse: "Int. 12. From your knowledge of your brother, his doings and his habits, what do you say was his capacity in April, 1888, to make a will? State your judgment, and reasons there for. A. I think he had no capacity whatever; for no one being under the effects of spirituous liquors continually could be in any kind of mental condition to construct a deed of any kind. I said 'perform' at first, but I would withdraw that word, and say 'construct a deed of any kind.'" The contestants also offered the following questions and answers from the deposition of Hattie Blood Lee: "Int. 3. When did you meet your brother at your home the last time, and what was the occasion, and who was there with you? A. In the month of March, 1885, my brother spent a month in my house in New York, at the time of my father's illness. My husband and my children. My father was sick at the club house, not at my house. My brother came down from Vermont, having been sent for by some member of the family, as they thought he (my father) was then in a very dangerous condition. [My brother was so irritable and abusive to my father that the doctors forbid him coming into the room. I state this of my own personal knowledge.] I was with my father during his entire illness there. (Proponent seasonably objects to the witness stating the conduct of Henry Blood to his father, and the direction to the physicians.) Int. 4. What was the conduct and condition of your brother, when so at your house, with reference to intoxicating drink? (Objected to.) A. I attribute his manner of speaking and acting to the use of intoxicating liquors. But he laid great stress upon having reformed completely, and tried to assure me of it". Shortly after, returning home one day, I found him partially undressed, on the library sofa, in a state of intoxication bordering almost on insensibility. He slept in this room 18 hours, and, when I could converse with him, he confessed at not having reformed, and assured me that he was taking then only beer. As I had from time to time supplied him with small sums of money, I believed him. (Whole of the foregoing answer is objected to by proponents.) Later on, I found out that he had run up a bill at the Union League Club for $50 or thereabouts; [and the corner grocer—my grocer—sent me the bill that my brother had run up, stating that my brother had refused to pay, and wanted to know if I would please pay it. The amount I have forgotten.] (Proponent objects to remainder of answer, and particularly what she states was told her by the corner grocer.) Int. 8. Will you state what was Henry's capacity for the transaction of business at the time he was at your house in 1885, as you have stated? And give your reasons for your judgment. (Objected to.) A. During the time that he lived with me, he was in no business, [and I never heard of his having transacted any business, unless you call the selling of articles that didn't belong to him as 'transacting business.'] (Answer objected to.) Int. 9. What do you say of his capacity for the transaction of any important matter of business, such as the disposition of property by will? A. As long as I have known him, I should not call him competent to make a will, or transact business of any kind. He certainly had no appreciation of value, and knew no difference between meum and teum. He would sacrifice his own and other members of the family's property for a mere trifle to satisfy the demand of the moment, which was generally to get intoxicating liquor. (Answer is objected to.)" The court excluded the portions of interrogatories 3, 4, and 8 in closed in brackets, and the whole of 9. No one of the...