In Re Skewis' Will, A-104.

• Decision Date: 30 March 1949
• Docket Number: No. A-104.,A-104.
• Citation: 64 A.2d 892
• Parties: In re SKEWIS' WILL
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

64 A.2d 892

In re SKEWIS' WILL

No. A-104.

Superior Court of New JerseyAppellate Division, Part A.

March 30, 1949.

Appeal from Middlesex County Court; Charles M. Morris, Judge.

Proceeding in the matter of appeal from the probate of the will of Margaret W. Skewis, deceased, contested by Mary Nix, and others. From an adverse judgment, contestants appeal.

Affirmed.

Before JACOBS, Senior Judge, and EASTWOOD and BIGELOW, JJ.

Heston N. Potts, of New Brunswick, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Henry C. Berg, of New Brunswick, for defendant-respondent.

EASTWOOD, Judge.

This is an appeal from the probate of the last will and testament of Margaret W. Skewis, deceased, on the ground that decedent's will was the product of undue influence exercised upon decedent by her sister, Sarah W. Stines, principal beneficiary under decedent's will and executrix thereof.

At the time of testatrix' death, on January 28, 1948, she was seventy-seven years of age and had been totally blind for more than a year. She left surviving three sisters, Mary Nix, Elizabeth Gehman and Sarah W. Stines, and one brother, James Watson. Her will was executed on November 15, 1947, under the provisions of which she made the following bequests, viz.: $300 to her brother, James Watson; $250 to her nephew, Edward H. Stines; $250 to Ann Stines, wife of her nephew Edward H. Stines, and the residue of her estate to her sister Sarah W. Stines, whom she appointed executrix. Decedent resided with Mrs. Stines and for several years prior to her death had been suffering from hypertension (arterial), heart disease, arteriosclerosis, high blood pressure and cataracts on both eyes.

The appellants are decedent's sisters, Mary Nix and Elizabeth Gehman and her brother, James Watson. They concede that the will was properly executed. The only ground relied on to set the will aside is the alleged undue influence of Mrs. Stines upon her sister, which they argue, is established by the proofs. They assert that decedent, at seventy-seven years of age, was enfeebled by physical and mental infirmities, that Mrs. Stines exercised complete control over the personal property of decedent for almost a year prior to the execution of the will, excluded other members of the family from decedent's society, participated in the preparation, execution and concealment of the alleged will and was the chief beneficiary and executrix named in the will. They contend that the proofs offered by appellants raise the presumption that the will was the result of undue influence exerted by Mrs. Stines and that the burden to prove the contrary shifted to Mrs. Stines. We have carefully reviewed the testimony and are of the opinion that the evidence does not support appellants' assertions of undue influence, nor that the decedent was so enfeebled by physical and mental illness and infirmities that she was susceptible to the control and influence allegedly exercised by Mrs. Stines over her. The incidents testified to by appellants and their witnesses, upon which they rely to establish the alleged undue influence were not of a convincing character and are not persuasive proof of the charge made against Mrs. Stines. On the other hand, there is the testimony of Dr. Reitman, who attended the decedent on the day of the execution of the will and who had been her attending physician for several months prior to her death. He stated that ‘in my opinion during the time of my visits and treatment she impressed me as being mentally sound’ and ‘In my opinion any time I saw Mrs. Skewis she was entirely capable of making independent decisions and she was not under the influence of anybody who was, as you say, close to her, or force their will upon her’. There was...