In re Geissler's Estate
| Decision Date | 19 December 1918 |
| Docket Number | 14541. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | In re GEISSLER'S ESTATE. v. GEISSLER et al. WEBER |
Appeal from Superior Court, Lincoln County; John Truax, Judge.
Proceedings by Agnes M. Weber against Frank J. Geissler, Irene May Geissler, and others, to contest the will of Agnes Geissler deceased. Decree for contestant, and the contestees, except Irene May Geissler, appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
See also, 99 Wash. 452, 169 P. 822.
W. M Nevins, of Odessa, and Merritt, Lantry & Merritt, of Spokane for appellants.
Zent & Powell, of Spokane, for respondent.
Agnes Geissler died January 27, 1916, in Adams county, Wash. She left a will which was admitted to probate on the 13th day of March, 1916. On the 29th day of September, 1916, Agnes M. Weber, daughter of the deceased, filed a petition in the superior court, asking that a citation issue to the executor and the heirs and devisees of her mother, and to show cause why the will should not be set aside and held for naught upon the ground that the will had been executed at a time when her mother was mentally incompetent to understand the contents of the will; that she did not sign it as her free and voluntary act, but at the dictation and under the menace, duress, fraud, and deceit of Frank J. Geissler, her husband, to whom the property was all left, save a specific legacy of $50 to each one of her children, including the contestant.
The petitioner further alleged that it was the wish and desire and purpose of her mother, when in her right mind and in the full possession of her mental faculties, to distribute her community interest in the property among her four children, share and share alike. The facts will be argued in the body of the opinion. The first question confronting us is whether the case is properly before us, it being urged by counsel for the contestant in whose favor judgment was entered that counsel for the contestees did not save any exceptions to the findings made by the court. The history of this feature of the case is fully outlined in our opinion in Re Geissler Estate, 99 Wash. 452, 169 P. 822. It is there suggested that the question should be passed to the merits. Without further discussion we hold in aid of our appellate jurisdiction, and upon the showing made, that counsel for the contestees announced to the court at the time findings were made that they excepted to such findings; this being not inconsistent with orderly practice, and counsel being experienced lawyers, familiar with appellate practice. The showing, on the other hand, would indicate that, although it was announced that exceptions were reserved, counsel did not specify the particular findings to which they excepted. This position is sustained, in that the trial judge did not note the exceptions at the time. The conflicting certificates of the trial judge are referred to in our former opinion. This being the state of the record, and being disinclined to deny an appeal where we are convinced that both sides are sincere, and that the situation comes not from neglect, or a selfish disposition to deny a right, but from a misunderstanding, we are inclined to hold that the case is properly before us.
The contestant produced the attending physicians, Dr. Ganson and Dr. Burroughs, who had been called in consultation on the day that the will was executed, as witnesses. As suggested in our former opinion, the case was tried before a jury which found in favor of the contestant. The trial judge adopted the findings of the jury, but also filed a memorandum of opinion, in which he says that the testimony clearly preponderates in favor of the mental capacity of the deceased at the time the will was executed, if we are to reject the testimony of the physicians. Counsel for the contestees persistently objected to the admission of the testimony of the physicians, claiming that they came within the rule of privilege as declared by section 1214, Rem. Code.
It was held below that the contest of the will, being a matter in probate, was not a civil action within the meaning of the statute, and that the physicians were therefore qualified.
Much of the brief is made up of an argument of this question, but, being convinced that the facts preponderate in favor of the will, with, as well as without, the testimony of the physicians, we will pass that question and consider the case as if the physicians were unquestionably qualified.
Mrs. Geissler had been sick for about a year. She had gone to Spokane for an operation in the fall. When the doctors came to operate they found her condition to be such that the hope of benefiting her was abandoned, and she was moved back to her home. The operation revealed a cancerous condition of the uterus, bladder, and pelvic organs, from which uremic poisoning developed. This condition, according to the testimony of Dr. Burroughs, brings on convulsions, which are followed by coma; that is, stupor and insensibility. It is in evidence too that the attending physician had prescribed morphine and hyoscin, and that these remedies would benumb the nervous system and impair the acumen of the mind and cause hallucinations and drowsiness when coming out from under the influence of the drugs.
Of the mental condition the attending physician, Dr. Ganson, testified in a general way:
The will was executed on the afternoon of December 22d. The doctor says:
To the direct question whether she was in such mental state as to know her property, her will, and the object of her bounty, Dr. Ganson says:
And on cross-examination he testified:
To a like general question Dr. Burroughs answered:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Rowley
...convincing evidence required to prove undue influence in the making of a will; note that this rule derives from In re Estate of Geissler, 104 Wash. 452, 456, 177 P. 330 (1918), which states that “[w]ills are favored in the law, and it is a cardinal principle of construction that the testimo......
- In re Martinson's Estate
- In re Riley's Estate
- In re Williams' Estate
-
Chapter A. Testamentary Capacity
...131 P. 847 (1913) (susceptibility to influence indicated lack of mental capacity). 62 96 Wash. 123, 165 P. 656 (1917). 63 Id. at 124. 64 104 Wash. 452, 177 P. 330 65 In re O'Neil's Estate, 35 Wn.2d 325, 333, 212 P.2d 823 (1949); Barbee v. Barbee, 134 Wash. 418, 235 P. 945 (1925); cf. In re ......
-
Table of Cases
...review denied, 96 Wn.2d 1004 (1981): 383 Gehlen v. Gehlen, 77 Wash. 17, 137 P. 312 (1913): 143, 145, 147, 148 Geissler's Estate, In re, 104 Wash. 452, 177 P. 330 (1918): 67, 70, 71 Geissler's Estate, In re, 110 Wash. 14, 187 P. 711 (1920): 387 Gerimonte v. Case, 42 Wn. App. 611, 712 P.2d 87......