In re Bolger's Estate, 17

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MOORE
• Citation: In re Bolger's Estate, 226 Mich. 545, 198 N.W. 216 (Mich. 1924)
• Decision Date: 10 April 1924
• Docket Number: Jan. Term.,No. 17,17
• Parties: In re BOLGER'S ESTATE.

226 Mich. 545

198 N.W. 216

In re BOLGER'S ESTATE.

No. 17, Jan. Term.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 10, 1924.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; John B. Goff, Judge.

Proceedings to probate the will of Lena T. Bolger, deceased, contested by William T. Bolger and others. Contest certified to circuit court, and, from a judgment for contestants, proponent appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before CLARK, C. J., and McDONALD, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ.Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, of Detroit, for appellant.

Cornelius, Doland & Boggio, of Detroit (Asher L. Cornelius, of Detroit, of counsel) for appellees.

MOORE, J.

Lena T. Bolger died in the city of Detroit December 8, 1920, leaving a will executed by her November 10, 1913. This will left to her only son, who lived in the village of Homer, Mich., the sum of $25. It left to her daughter Elsie M. Bolger, who lived in the city of Buffalo, N. Y., $25. It left to her daughter Elizabeth G. Talbot, of the city of Rochester, N. Y., the sum of $25 and two life insurance policies on the life of the said Elizabeth G. Talbot. It left all the rest of the estate to the Home for the Homeless in the city of Utica, N. Y. The insurance policies mentioned were for $100 and $114. The inventory of the estate left by Mrs. Bolger showed it to be worth upwards of $10,000. The children of Mrs. Bolger contested the will upon the ground of incompetency, undue influence, and insane delusions as to her relatives and children, and the Catholic Church.

Upon the petition of William T. Bolger, the will contest was certified to the circuit court for trial. After the testimony was all in, the court was requested to direct a verdict in favor of the proponent. This he declined to do, and submitted the case to the jury in a charge, from which we quote as follows:

‘It is better for us in the first instance, to clear away as much as possible those things which might interfere with the perception of the issue in this case, and I charge you that the contest of this will is not made upon the ground of general incapacity of the testatrix, Lena T. Bolger, to make a will; and, further, that there is no evidence in this case that any undue influence was exercised upon said Lena T. Bolger by officers or agents or representatives of the Home for the Homeless, the principal beneficiary under the paper writing which is claimed to be the will of Lena T. Bolger. * * * The testatrix at the time she executed this will in 1913, is presumed by the law to be competent.'

‘You are instructed that an owner of property, desiring to dispose of the same by will, has the right to distribute it according to his or her own judgment, and may give nothing to the children, or may divide it equally among them or other relatives, or leave the same to others not related to the testator, at his or her pleasure; and of this right a property owner cannot be deprived; nor is a will made in execution of such purpose to be lightly set aside; and no will is to be deemed invalid because the jury are of the opinion that a different disposition ought to have been made; nor is the disposition made by a testatrix, if otherwise valid, to be overruled or overridden by a jury. * * * In order to overthrow the presumption of law that Lena T. Bolger was mentally competent on November 10, 1913, to make the will that is produced in evidence, it must be shown by competent evidence that she made said will as the direct result of a delusion-insane delusion or insane delusions emanating from an unsound mind-and that in the absence of such insane delusions she would not have made said will.'

The judge then stated the claims of contestants and proceeded:

‘An insane delusion exists when a person persistently believes supposed facts which have no real existence, and so believes such supposed facts against all evidence and probabilities and without any foundation or reason for the belief, and conducts himself or herself as if such facts actually existed. * * * If a person has a belief for which there is a valid reason or for which there is a foundation, that belief can hardly be called an insane delusion. The burden of proof as we have already, I think, stated, or will state now, is upon the contestants in this case to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Lena T. Bolger, at the time she made this will in 1913, had a delusion which was an insane delusion, an insane delusion which operated upon her mind to the detriment of her children.'

‘Some evidence has been introduced in this case by experts relative to the subject of monomania. Monomania is insanity upon a single subject; it is an insane delusion which renders the person afflicted incapable of reasoning on that particular subject. He assumes that to be true which has no foundation or reason in fact on which to found his belief.'

‘In regard to insane delusions, unless an insane delusion influenced the testatrix in the disposition of her property to the prejudice of the contestants, they cannot prevail in this case. If you should find as a matter of fact, by a preponderance of the evidence, that at the time this will was executed the testatrix was laboring under any one or more of the insane delusions which have been called to your attention, and acted upon one or more of such delusions, and such insane delusion influenced the testatrix in making the will she made, then such an insane delusion, if it operated on the mind of the testatrix and dictated the making of the will, would avoid the will.'

‘Capricious and arbitrary dislikes, however, unjust suspicions against relatives, or mistaken beliefs as to their feelings and designs towards the testatrix and her property, however visionary that belief, of acts or facts, which have any evidential basis, do not constitute insane delusions. If there are any facts, however little the evidential force they may possess, upon which the testator may in reason base his or her belief, it will not be an insane delusion, though on consideration of the facts themselves this belief may seem illogical and foundationless; for a will, it is obvious, is not to be overturned because testator has not reasoned correctly. Actual or presumed innocence of the party in relation to whom the insane delusion is claimed does not preclude a sane and honest belief to the contrary, of which there is any evidential support, however faulty or insufficient. * * * A belief of the testatrix that her children lacked filial affection or had treated her wrongly or injuriously would not be an insane delusion, if you find that there was any foundation or reason for that belief.'

‘If you find that the testatrix at the time of making her will in 1913 acted and conducted herself as if she had a persistent belief that her children had not treated her fairly or justly or affectionately, but had treated her wrongly and injuriously, and further find that there was no evidence or probability for such belief, and find further that such belief was without any foundation or reason, then in such case such belief may be considered as an insane delusion. If, however, the testatrix had any reason to believe that her children had not treated her fairly, justly, or affectionately, but had treated her wrongly and injuriously, such belief would not be an insane delusion. * * * If you should find in this case that any witness has testified falsely upon a material point in the case, you are entitled to disregard such evidence, unless that testimony should be supported by other evidence which you do believe.'

‘If you should find for the proponent, that the will is valid, then your verdict should be that the will is the last will and testament of Lena T. Bolger. If you should find for the contestants, it would be sufficient for you to say that you find for the contestants of the will.'

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the contestants. Counsel then moved the court for a judgment non obstante veredicto for twelve different reasons, some of which are: (1) That the verdict is not sustained by any evidence whatever. (2) Because the verdict was for the contestants upon grounds which in no way impaired the validity of the will. (3) Because there is no evidence in the case of any insane delusions. (4) Because there is no evidence in the case tending to show that the will was not the last will and testament of Lena T. Bolger, deceased. (5) Because the verdict is contrary to the great weight of evidence adduced in the case. (6) Because there is no evidence to show that deceased was suffering from any insane delusions on November 10, 1913, or that any insane delusions affected the will made by her on that date.

The judge overruled the motion and entered judgment upon the verdict. A motion was then made for a new trial, based upon substantially the same reasons. This motion was overruled, and the case is brought into this court by appeal.

Counsel raise in this court the same questions that were raised in the court below by the motions we have mentioned.

We now quote from the brief:

‘The main question involved in this case is whether, on November 10, 1913, the day testatrix made her last will and testament, she was or was not afflicted with insane delusions as to her children. Appellant claims that the record is absolutely devoid of any evidence of insane delusions and that the court was in error in overruling proponent's motion for a judgment non obstante veredicto.

‘It becomes necessary to determine what is an insane delusion. According to all the decisions of this court, to constitute an insane delusion, one must believe a supposed fact which has no real existence except in his perverted imagination, and he must believe in it against all evidence and probability and conduct himself, however, illogical, upon the assumption of its existence. Bean v. Bean, 144 Mich. 599, 108 N. W. 369;In re Rosa's Estate, 210 Mich. 629, 178 N. W. 23;In re Haslick's Estate, 195 Mich. 439, 161 N....