In re Van Houten's Will

• Decision Date: 16 February 1910
• Citation: 124 N.W. 886,147 Iowa 725
• Parties: IN RE VAN HOUTEN'S WILL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

147 Iowa 725

124 N.W. 886

IN RE VAN HOUTEN'S WILL.^d1

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 16, 1910.

Appeal from District Court, Mahaska County; W. G. Clements, Judge.

Proceedings for probate of will. Contest by certain heirs who were dissatisfied with the distribution of the property provided for in said instrument. Verdict and judgment for contestants and proponents appeal. Reversed.Hays & Amos and George G. Gaass, for appellants.

S. A. Reynolds, John N. McCoy, and F. H. Peterson, for appellees.

WEAVER, J.

The objections to the probate of the will are based upon the alleged mental incompetency of the testator and alleged undue influence under which it was executed. Henry Van Houten was a native of Holland, who emigrated to this country after arriving at years of maturity. He was well educated, had been a teacher, and until he came to this country and settled in Iowa had not been engaged in farming. He was born in the year 1812, and was twice married. By his first marriage he had several children. His second wife was a widow and brought to the family several children of her first marriage and one child born to her, and deceased survives. After tarrying awhile in the Eastern states deceased came to Iowa in 1853, and founded a home in a Dutch settlement in the central part of the state. Here he resided until his death at the advanced age of about 96 years. He acquired a farm of some 300 to 400 acres, which was paid for, and he enjoyed a fair degree of comfort and prosperity. Not being reared as a farmer, he did very little of the actual work of cultivating and improving his land, but for many years relied very largely upon his children and stepchildren, most of whom continued in the family, assisting in working and caring for the farm, for several years after reaching their majority. In time, however, all the children save a daughter, who remained with him till the end of his life, went out to their own homes, or in pursuit of their own enterprises. Among the children of the first marriage were two sons Elko and William, who with one sister are the contestants herein. The two sons named, having gone into business on their own account, met with reverses, and their father was compelled to pay debts to a considerable amount contracted by them, and on which he was liable as their surety. After this occurrence the relations between father and sons became for a time at least unpleasant, and he was wont to refer to his financial loss on their account with bitterness. With advancing years he became to some extent debilitated physically, and, as contestants claim, mentally as well. In 1904, or perhaps a year or two prior to that date, he called upon Mr. Neyenesch, an old friend and fellow countryman, to prepare his will. Mr. Neyenesch drew the will, as he says, according to the direction and dictation of Van Houten, and it was then duly executed by him. By this instrument he gave to his son Elko the sum of $1 only. To his minor grandson, a son of William, he gave a half interest in 50 acres of land, and certain books, but made no provision for William, except the use of the property given the grandson until the latter should reach his majority. The bulk of the remainder of his estate, both real and personal, he gave to Syke Van Houten, the daughter who had remained with him and cared for him. On January 20, 1906, he called Mr. Neyenesch to his home, and procured him to prepare a new will, which was executed, and the first instrument destroyed. The principal change made by the later will in the disposition of his estate was the withdrawal of a small bequest made to his daughter Neeltje Van der Tunk, living in Holland. As to his sons Elko and William, the second will was a copy or repetition of the first. In 1908, 2 1/2 years after the execution of the second will, and 4 years at least after the date of the first one, William Van Houten filed a petition in the district court, alleging that his father Henry Van Houten was of unsound mind and incompetent to manage and care for his property, and was wasting the same, for which reasons he asked the court to appoint a guardian to care for and preserve the estate. The deceased appeared to this proceeding, and joined issue upon the allegation of the petition, and alleged his perfect competency to manage and control his own property and business. The cause was tried to the court, which found the allegations of the petition had not been sustained, and entered judgment for the defendant. Among other things put in evidence upon said trial was the deposition of Henry Van Houten, which has been introduced into the present record.

The foregoing statement of some of the salient features of the history of this controversy has seemed necessary in order to make entirely clear the point and bearing of appellant's exceptions to certain rulings of the trial court. As has already been stated, the contestants allege, first, that at the date of the will the testator was of unsound mind, and without testamentary capacity; and, second, that the execution of the will was procured by undue influence exercised by the daughter Syke Van Houten and others. The jury found for the contestants on both propositions.

1. It is contended for the appellants that there is no evidence upon which the finding against the testamentary capacity of the deceased can be sustained, and that the court should have directed a verdict thereon in favor of the proponents. As a new trial must be awarded for reasons hereinafter stated, it is proper that we refrain from any discussion of the evidence further than to say that, while the testator is shown to have been a man of much more than ordinary intelligence, and appears to have retained his faculties in a remarkable degree to an age beyond the years allotted to an average person, yet if we assume the truth of all the evidence offered in support of the contestants' claims (and we must so assume in considering whether a verdict should have been directed), we cannot say as a matter of law that it did not present a question of fact for the jury.

2. A careful examination of the record discloses an entire absence of evidence on which to base a finding of undue influence, and in our judgment this question should have been withdrawn from the jury. But the court is committed to the rule that, where the questions of mental incompetency and undue influence are both submitted to the jury, and both are determined affirmatively, the fact that the finding upon one of them is without support in the evidence does not entitle the proponent to a reversal if there is evidence on which the other finding can be upheld. Will of Sellick, 125 Iowa, 680, 101 N. W. 453; Bett's Estate, 113 Iowa, 115, 84 N. W. 975;Wharton's Estate, 132 Iowa, 716, 109 N. W. 492. If the question were one of first impression, the writer would be strongly inclined to the opposite conclusion, and to hold that manifest error in the submission of either question, and particularly where the finding of the jury thereon is also manifestly erroneous, is ground for reversal; but the rule as stated has been too often followed to be now discarded without introducing unfortunate confusion in our decisions.

3. The contestant William Van Houten as a witness in his own behalf was permitted,...