In re Cahill's Estate
| Decision Date | 15 May 1912 |
| Citation | 136 N.W. 214,155 Iowa 340 |
| Parties | IN RE ESTATE OF MAURICE CAHILL, SR., M. D. CAHILL, THOS. CAHILL AND MORICE CAHILL, Proponents, Appellees, v. MAURICE CAHILL, JR., DANIEL CAHILL, FRANK H. CAHILL AND JOHN CAHILL, Contestants. Appellants |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Linn District Court.-- HON. MILO P. SMITH, Judge.
THIS is a contest over the probate of a will of Maurice Cahill, Sr. deceased. The objections interposed were want of testamentary capacity; and the contestants asked the probate of a prior will. Upon trial to a jury there was a verdict finding Cahill competent on August 4, 1908, to make a will, and the paper executed on that date as his last will and testament was admitted to probate. Contestants appeal.--Reversed and remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Dawley & Wheeler and Crosby & Fordyce for appellants.
B. L Wick, Lewis Heins, and Maurice Cahill for appellees.
Maurice Cahill, Sr., died March 18, 1910, at the age of seventy-nine years, leaving surviving six sons and one daughter. The survivors are all of age, and the sons are the parties to this litigation. Deceased was a native of Ireland, but came to this country when he was about eighteen years of age, and in the year 1855 settled in Linn county, Iowa where he engaged in farming. Although given to the use of intoxicating liquors during his adult life, which use increased with years, deceased was quite successful as a farmer, and accumulated considerable property. While uneducated and unable to read and write, he was, in his prime, industrious, thrifty, and strong, both mentally and physically. On October 29, 1899, he executed a will whereby he disposed of his entire estate; but in February of the year 1901 upon application of his oldest son, Maurice, Jr., a temporary guardian was appointed for him upon a petition alleging unsoundness of mind and excessive indulgence in intoxicants. After due notice and a trial with a defense by a guardian ad litem, Maurice Cahill, Jr., was appointed a permanent guardian, and as such duly qualified and acted as such down to the death of his ward, in March, 1910. The instrument in question was executed August 4, 1908. It appears to have been properly executed, and is signed and attested by the requisite number of witnesses. Contestants introduced testimony to show that as early as the fall of the year 1899, deceased became afflicted with arterio sclerosis of a pronounced type, and that this as usual grew worse from time to time, finally ending in complete dementia and general incapacity to make a will. It is claimed that at the time when the last will was executed testator lacked testamentary capacity, and that the instrument should not have been admitted to probate. Upon the issue of mental incapacity alone, the case was submitted to a jury, resulting in a verdict in favor of the proponents. The errors relied upon for a reversal relate to rulings on the admission and rejection of testimony and to certain of the instructions given and refused.
I. The contestants offered in evidence the petition for the appointment of a guardian for the deceased and the record of the proceedings thereunder, including the final decree which, in effect, found that the deceased, defendant in the guardianship proceedings, was mentally incompetent and incapable of transacting his business, that for some time he had been unable to manage his affairs, and that he was mentally unbalanced and addicted to the excessive use of intoxicants. The guardianship was of both the person and the property of the deceased. This testimony was received, and the trial court gave the following instruction with reference thereto:
(9) The evidence shows that in the year 1901, and before the instrument in controversy was executed, there was by this court a guardian appointed over the property of the testator on the ground that he was mentally unbalanced, and using intoxicating liquors to excess, and consequently was squandering, and likely to squander, his property. This evidence has been admitted solely as a circumstance or incident to be considered by you in connection with all the other evidence in the case touching the ability of Maurice Cahill, Sr., to dispose of his property by will; and the order for and appointment of such guardian is not an adjudication, nor is it prima facie evidence, of his want of testamentary capacity; for the state of being unfit to manage his property and business affairs generally on account of mental unsoundness, and excessive use of intoxicating liquors, is not inconsistent with capacity to make testamentary disposition of property. In other words, a person may be capable of making a valid will and not capable of managing his property affairs generally. The fact that it is recited in the bond of the guardian that Maurice Cahill, Sr. was of unsound mind is not a legal finding or adjudication that he was of unsound mind, nor should you regard it as such.
With reference to this, contestants asked the following:
(9) You are instructed that testamentary capacity includes more than the power of memory. It includes the power of reason, judgment, and deliberation to a reasonable degree.
(10) You are instructed that in determining under these instructions whether Maurice Cahill, Sr., had with the other qualifications necessary to make a valid will sufficient knowledge of the extent and character of his property, you should take into consideration the testimony introduced upon this trial pending to show that said Maurice Cahill, Sr., had for years prior to the making of this document been under guardianship, and therefore deprived of the management or control of his property, that said Maurice Cahill, Sr., was unable to read or write, and to what extent, if any, he failed to realize the amount or character of his property then in his guardian's hands.
(11) You are instructed that a person under guardianship is prima facie incompetent to make a valid will.
In giving this ninth instruction and in refusing No. 11 asked by contestants, we think the trial court was in error. The general, if not universal, rule now is...
To continue reading
Request your trial