In re Pinney

• Decision Date: 01 January 1880
• Citation: 6 N.W. 791,27 Minn. 280
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF THE WILL OF PINNEY, ETC.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

27 Minn. 280

6 N.W. 791

IN THE MATTER OF THE WILL OF PINNEY, ETC.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed October -, 1880.

Appeal from order of district court, Hennepin county.

J. Guilford and Benton & Benton, for executors.

Shaw & Levi, and Lochren, McNair & Gilfillan, for contestants.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

Ovid Pinney, over 80 years of age, made his will March 22, 1872, and died November 4, 1878. The will was presented for probate in the probate court of Hennepin county, and was contested on the ground of the mental incapacity of Pinney, and of undue influence exercised by certain persons named. It was, however, allowed and admitted to probate by the probate court. From the decree allowing it, the contestants appealed to the district court. In that court, issues upon the mental capacity of the testator and the undue influence alleged were framed and tried by a jury, who found that the testator was not at the time of executing the will of sound mind, and also found against the allegation of undue influence. From an order denying a new trial this appeal is brought. It was decided in the Matter of Eliza Dutcher, 4 N.W. REP. (N.S.) 685, that a verdict upon an issue in probate proceedings, on appeal to the district court, is as binding as in any action, and is subject to the same rules as to setting it aside for insufficiency of evidence. The rule is applicable to this case. Under those rules we see no reason to question the finding in this case.

Contestants introduced James J. Green as a witness, who testified to business relations and transactions with deceased sufficient to qualify him to express an opinion as to his mental capacity, within the rule that a witness not an expert must first disclose the facts upon which his opinion is based, before he can be allowed to express an opinion on mental capacity, and then can be allowed to state only his opinion formed from those facts. The question calling for the witness' opinion is criticised, because it called on him to state his opinion of the testator's ability to do important business; and it is claimed that if the testator had capacity to transact ordinary business he might make a valid will, and that the question ought to have been as to ability to do ordinary rather than important business. Whether this is so or not, it is unnecessary to decide, for the answer was not in this respect responsive to the question. The answer was that the testator was incompetent to transact business to any extent. The questions put to the proponent's witnesses, Baker, Armstrong, and Baldwin, were properly excluded, because they called for the opinions of the witnesses (who were not experts) generally, and not for opinions based on...