In re Littlejohn's Estate

• Decision Date: 29 July 1927
• Docket Number: No. 82.,82.
• Citation: 215 N.W. 55,239 Mich. 630
• Parties: In re LITTLEJOHN'S ESTATE. Appeal of SMITH et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

239 Mich. 630

215 N.W. 55

In re LITTLEJOHN'S ESTATE. Appeal of SMITH et al.

No. 82.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

July 29, 1927.

Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County; Ira W. Jayne, Judge.

Proceedings by William Littlejohn for the probate of the will of Emilie Littlejohn, deceased, contested by John W. Smith and another. Judgment for the contestants, and proponent brings error. Reversed and remanded, with direction.

Argued before the Entire Bench.Wilkinson, Lowther, Wilkinson & O'Connell, of Detroit, for appellant.

Lodge & Brown, of Detroit, for appellees.

CLARK, J.

Emilie Littlejohn, 71 years old, made a will in May, 1921, and died nearly two years later. She had two sons, William and John. Her daughter Anna had died in 1918 leaving a husband, Arthur H. Spens, and three children. The will gives to William household goods appraised at $632 and the boulevard property, so-called, appraised at $12,000, and it bestows the residue, appraised at upwards of $79,000, one-third to William, one-third to John, and one-third in trust for the children of Anna. John's wife is a sister of Spens. Testatrix stated in her will that she gave the boulevard property to William for the reason that he had ‘devoted a greater part of his time and attention to taking care of me in my old age’ and she stated an established fact.

The will was contested on usual grounds by John and by Spens as guardian of his children, but at the conclusion of proof contestants limited their contest to one ground, mental incompetency, and that issue went to the jury whose verdict was against the will. Judgment was entered on the verdict, and proponent, William, brings error.

The question is that a verdict for the will should have been directed. Contestants, there being no claim of undue influence or fraud, are met at the outset with what is always a difficult if not an insuperable circumstance, that testatrix, alone with her attorney, alone gave directions relative to the disposition of her property, alone stated the objects of her bounty and the portion each was to have. She alone in effect dictated the substance of the will. And it is further significant that after the will was in form, she herself caused its somewhat elaborate trust provision to be corrected and amplified. The will was read to her and duly and formally executed. But contestants contend that testatrix lacked mental capacity to do what she did so, and they seek to support the contention by testimony of both lay and medical witnesses. Counsel for contestants have summarized most skillfully under many heads the evidence urged to show mental incompetency. Testatrix had been vigorous and strong-willed. In the later years she was afflicted with hardening of the arteries, high blood pressure, and some kidney trouble. She was once acutely ill of pneumonia. She had what is called by lay witnesses a stroke, from which she did not recover fully. The stroke followed soon after her daughter's death. That at the time of making the will illness and age had caused some physical impairment and that there had been some incidental mental loss there can be no doubt. But the question is her mental competency to make the will. The will itself tested by the facts of the record is not surprising. It is the reasonable outgrowth of her environment, of her life, of her obligations, of the claims on her bounty, and of her likes and dislikes. She disliked Spens. She was determined that he should have none of her property, and this is one reason, at least, for the trust in favor of the children of Anna and Spens. Testatrix's state of mind in this regard had been produced by complaints of ill treatment by Spens made to her by Anna. This dislike, so founded and reasoned, is not evidence of mental incompetency.

Lay witnersses told of testatrix's haibts of personal untidiness in her last years, of her failing to exhaust subjects of conversation, of her arbitrary and dictatorial manner toward her maids, and of her extreme particularity relative to certain household duties. But we have held again and again that these trifling matters afford no basis for an opinion of mental incompetency to make a will. Testatrix made some irrational statements while acutely ill. She was not so ill when the will was made, and such statements are disregarded. Testatrix grieved greatly for Anna's death. She often wept and continued to weep. That her love for her only daughter and her sorrow for her passing should be manifest in much grief and many tears is not evidence of mental incompetency.

A medical witness, answering a long hypothetical question reviewing the evidence adduced by contestants to show mental incompetency, gave as his opinion that testatrix was not competent to make the will. The answer to this is quoted from Spratt v. Spratt, 76 Mich. 384, 43 N. W. 627:

‘But what weight is opinion evidence entitled to where it appears that, unaided by any one, he does in fact make a will disposing of all his property, dictating consecutively the bequests and devises he sees fit to make to a large number of relatives, near and remote? What weight or reliance should be given to the opinion of persons, interested or disinterested, professional or lay, to the effect that a person, who has in fact dictated a will disposing of all his property by successive bequests and devises, requiring consecutive thought and the exercise of memory, was unable to transact any matter of business which required for its completion several hours of time, recalling of various people and facts, or that he was mentally incapacitated to understand the nature and extent of his property, and the number and relation of those who were the proper objects of his bounty, so as to make a will devising his estate? The court rightly instructed the jury that there was no claim in the case that there was any fraud or undue influence practiced upon the testator in making the instrument; and he also instructed them that, beyond the questions incident to its execution, the only question was whether, at the time the will was executed by Mr. Spratt, he was competent...