In re Murphy's Estate

• Decision Date: 18 October 1917
• Docket Number: 13985.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: In re MURPHY'S ESTATE. v. MURPHY. MURPHY

168 P. 175

98 Wash. 548

In re MURPHY'S ESTATE.

MURPHY v. MURPHY.

No. 13985.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 18, 1917

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Stevens County; Bruce Blake Judge.

Action by James E. Murphy against Charles F. Murphy to set aside the probate proceedings had with regard to the will of Patrick G Murphy, and to have admitted to probate in its stead a purported later will of the same testator. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Carey &amp Johnson, of Colville, for appellant.

L. B. Donley, of Colville, and Davis & Heil, of Spokane, for respondent.

HOLCOMB J.

This is an action brought to set aside the probate proceedings had with regard to the will of the testator bearing date July 23, 1901, which was admitted to probate in the superior court of Stevens county, Wash., on December 15, 1914, and to have admitted to probate in its stead a purported later will of this same testator, Patrick G. Murphy, which will was executed in April, 1914.

Patrick F. Murphy died at the home of his son James E. Murphy at Velvet, not far from Northport, Wash., on November 23, 1914. His age at the time of his death cannot be determined with any accuracy, but from his own statements and those of his family and friends it is thought he was from 97 to 104 years old. There survived him five children, three daughters and two sons. The sons are contesting in this action. About 19 years prior to his death Patrick Murphy moved from Laramie, Wyo., to Northport, Wash., to make his home with his son Charles F. Murphy. At this time, although well advanced in years, he was quite vigorous in mind, and it seems that he helped his son at that time in editing a newspaper. He continued to make his home with this son from that time until March 16, 1914, when he was taken by Charles to Velvet, for what was intended as a visit with his other son James E. Murphy. When he came to Northport he had some property, and from time to time thereafter acquired more. For about 8 years prior to his death he had a pension which amounted to $30 a month. All of this property he kept himself, and it is uncontradicted in the record that his son Charles bought him all of his clothing and provided him with food and shelter during that time. Both parties to this controversy are agreed upon the fact that the old gentleman was miserly in his habits, and that he habitually entertained the most petty suspicions regarding the honesty of his sons and of others in whom he seemed to place some confidence. In the will of July 23, 1901, he makes minor bequests to his daughters and to James Murphy, and leaves the rest of his estate to his son Charles. In the will of April, 1914, which the lower court has held to be the last will of the testator and therefore the one which should be probated, the same minor bequests are made as in the former will, but the residue of his property is left entirely to his son James.

In this action not only two brothers but neighbors and friends are engaged in the dissension. From all the evidence the following are the chief facts from which the appellant seeks to show that the later will was made when his father had not the proper mental capacity to make it, and that he was unduly influenced to make it because of the false representations of James E. Murphy and his wife. It appears that the deceased had on many occasions prior to March, 1914, expressed great dislike for his son James. He also told diverse persons that he 'wished Charlie to have all of his property.' James Murphy has at no time in this action attempted to show that he ever expended anything for the support or maintenance of his father before March 16, 1914. The transaction that seems to have been the beginning of the elder Murphy's repudiation of Charles was the making of a partnership agreement which they entered into on the 23d day of May, 1913. Charles had decided to go into the general merchandise business at the town of Parkwater, not far from Northport. He was erecting a building at a cost of about $6,000, and was in need of a little more money to give him something to do business on. His father had in the bank about $1,926. He gave it to Charles, and an agreement was drawn in which the father was given an interest in the business. During the last few months preceding this time the testator's mind and body, in the opinion of some of the witnesses, were growing more feeble. On January 15, 1914, he went to Parkwater to live with Charles. He began to imagine that his friends and relatives were trying to poison him; that the customers were stealing goods from the store; became angry because he was not allowed to wait on customers, and thought that his son was robbing him because the money in the till was not divided every night. He also became so possessed with the idea that he would not get his money back that his son on March 7, 1914, made and delivered to him a note for $1,926. This note was written in longhand and was dated March 7, 1904. This mistake was not discovered until about ten days later. It was discovered after Charles Murphy had taken his father to Velvet on March 16, 1914. The father had become very anxious to get back among his old friends around Northport. He wished to go to Northport and keep house for himself. Charles Murphy realized that he was not able to care for himself, and suggested that he go to stay for a while with James. This the old man did not want to do, but after much persuasion he agreed to go for a few days, and it was a part of this agreement that Charles was to take him there and go back for him in a few days. Charles took him there, and in about two weeks called to take him back, but the father would not go. Appellant claims that he was willing to go himself, but that the wife of James Murphy told his father that he did not want to go. Murphy, Sr., did not long want to stay at the home of James. On the 18th of March, the day after he had discovered the mistake in the note, he summoned a justice of the peace--Lee--and had a will drawn and a general power of attorney executed in favor of James Murphy. The circumstances of the alleged antedating of the note is made much of by the respondent to show that the appellant was a party to a scheme to rob the father. This we consider is a mistake that might easily have been made by any one, even the respondent himself, being a mistake of merely a figure. The will as drawn on the 18th of March was taken to Colville in April by James Murphy, and a lawyer was consulted as to the form and contents. At that time a new will and power of attorney were drawn up and were taken to Velvet and there executed by the testator with all the formalities required by law. The witnesses were M. E. Hull and Alice Murphy, the wife of the respondent. All of these witnesses testified at the trial that the condition of the old gentleman's mind was the same as it had always been during the 15 years or more that they had known him. Their testimony is contradicted by other witnesses.

It is very difficult to explain the actions of the testator if truthfully described after he had drawn his last will and at the same time believe that he was not enfeebled in mind. There is testimony that he would ask those who came to the house of James Murphy to visit to take him away; said that he was about to be killed by poisoning; that they were holding him as a prisoner; and on one occasion he offered a witness $25 to take him away from Velvet. There are also in evidence letters written by James Murphy to the prosecuting attorney of Stevens county asking what might be done with the old gentleman. These letters state that the father was not able to take care of himself, and a guardianship is hinted at.

On December 15, 1914, the appellant filed his petition in the superior court of Stevens county, Wash., praying that the last will and testament of Patrick G. Murphy be admitted to probate, and that letters testamentary issue to him as executor of the will and estate of Patrick G. Murphy deceased, which petition was granted. Appellant then filed a general inventory,...