In re Edens' Will

• Decision Date: 09 November 1921
• Docket Number: 287.
• Citation: 109 S.E. 269,182 N.C. 398
• Parties: IN RE EDENS' WILL.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

109 S.E. 269

182 N.C. 398

IN RE EDENS' WILL.

No. 287.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

November 9, 1921

Appeal from Superior Court, Robeson County; Daniels, Judge.

Proceeding to probate will of Letilla M. Edens, deceased, to which Allen Edens filed a caveat. No error. Motion for new trial denied.

On caveat to will refusal to charge jurors to attach importance to testimony of subscribing witnesses held harmless as to caveators where testimony of such witnesses as to matters which did not transpire at time and place of attestation was favorable to contention of caveators.

Issue of devisavit vel non raised by a caveat to the will of Letilla M. Edens. Alleged mental incapacity and undue influence are the grounds upon which the caveat is based.

Allen Edens, a bachelor, and his maiden sister, Letilla M. Edens whose will is the subject of this controversy, owned as tenants in common a valuable farm situated in Robeson county upon which they lived and worked together for quite a number of years. From time to time they took into their home some young man to act as overseer of their farming interests. W W. Rowland was employed in this capacity for many years, then Alton McGirt, and finally John C. Crawford one of the propounders, who came to them when quite a young man and remained with them until they died.

Allen and Letilla Edens had but one living brother, Frank Edens, who likewise was never married. They also had two sets of nieces and nephews, children of two deceased brothers, and these nieces and nephews are the caveators in this action.

The record is replete with evidence tending to show an estrangement between the testatrix and her relatives from the time of the death of her brother, Allen Edens, in 1917, until her own death in 1919. There is also evidence of John C. Crawford, one of the beneficiaries, having ingratiated himself in her favor and acting somewhat in the capacity of a confidential adviser in relation to her business affairs. And, further, there is evidence appearing on the record tending to show that, prior to the making of her will, the testatrix became so embittered and allowed her prejudices to become so aroused that at times she would work herself into a frenzy, fly into a violent rage, and abuse her relatives, calling them "knaves, robbers, thieves, kings, kaisers, and the celebrated heirs and gang." She was 71 years of age at the time of her death; and she left a considerable estate. Mrs. Ward testified:

"She was an unusually good conversationalist, very intelligent until the last few years of her life. I began to notice a change in her habits decidedly in 1915. From then on the change in her condition grew worse."

There was a strain of hereditary insanity in the family of the testatrix.

Under the will the old Edens homeplace was devised to John C. Crawford, a stranger in blood, and this is urged as evidence of an unnatural mind.

There was much evidence, pro and con, on the question of mental capacity, and some evidence on the issue of undue influence; but, upon these controverted matters, the jury's answer established the validity of the will.

The motion for new trial was made on the ground that one of the jurors was intoxicated during the trial. The evidence in support of the motion consisted of four affidavits that affiants knew juror claimed to have been intoxicated, that they were present during the trial, and that at different times during the trial such juror was plainly under the influence of intoxicating liquor to the extent that he staggered and needed assistance. In opposition to the motion there were the affidavits of the other jurors, with the exception of one who had died since the trial, that there was nothing to indicate that such juror was under the influence of liquor at any time during the trial, the affidavit of the juror himself, who denied having been intoxicated, and the affidavits of others who saw and came in contact with him during the time of the trial, contradictory of facts stated in affidavits in support of the motion.

From a verdict and judgment in favor of the propounders, the caveators appealed.

Johnson & Johnson and McNeill & Hackett, all of Lumberton, Sinclair, Dye & Clark, of Fayetteville, and McLean, Varser, McLean & Stacy, of Lumberton, for appellants.

C. W. Tillett, of Charlotte, Stephen McIntyre, of Lumberton, G. B. Patterson, of Maxton, and Britt & Britt, of Lumberton, for appellees.

STACY J.

There are a number of exceptions appearing on the record relating to the admission and exclusion of evidence, but none apparently raises any new question of law which would seem to merit an extended discussion. In several instances it does not appear what answer the witness would have made to the excluded question, nor what the caveators proposed to prove by the evidence which they wanted to offer. Therefore, as we cannot determine what bearing these rulings may have had upon the result, the exceptions must be...