In re Weedman's Estate

Decision Date21 June 1912
PartiesIn re WEEDMAN'S ESTATE.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, McLean County; Colostin D. Myers, Judge.

Petition by Minor B. Neal for probate of the will of Catherine Weedman, deceased, opposed by Harriet Baker Matthews and others. From an order admitting the will to probate, affirmed by the circuit court, contestants appeal. Affirmed.

Welty, Sterling & Whitmore (Newton Matthews, of counsel), for appellants.

Hart & Fleming, for appellee.

DUNN, C. J.

Catherine Weedman, a resident of Bloomington, Ill., died on September 9, 1911, and a few days later Minor B. Neal, her son-in-law, presented to the county court of McLean county a petition for the probate of an instrument purporting to be her will. Objection was made by the present appellants, but upon the hearing of the petition the instrument was admitted to probate, and upon appeal this order of the county court was affirmed by the circuit court. The objectors have appealed from the order of the circuit court.

[1][2] The will was executed in legal form and the testimony of the subscribing witnesses fulfilled the requirements of the statute for its admission to probate. No other evidence as to the mental capacity of the testatrix was competent. Claussenius v. Claussenius, 179 Ill. 545, 53 N. E. 1006;Moody v. Found, 208 Ill. 78, 69 N. E. 831;O'Brien v. Bonfield, 213 Ill. 428, 72 N. E. 1090. The objectors, however, introduced in evidence a transcript of certain proceedings in the county court of McLean county for the appointment of a conservator for Mrs. Weedman, which were begun on November 22, 1909, and resulted in a verdict finding that she was a distracted or feeble-minded person, and in a judgment rendered November 27, 1909, on the verdict, directing that Minor B. Neal be appointed conservator for her, from which judgment an appeal was taken by Mrs. Weedman to the circuit court. A transcript of her testimony given on the trial in the county court was also introduced. The will was executed on December 30, 1909. The appellants contend that a person who has been legally adjudged to be a distracted or feeble-minded person is therefore not authorized to devise property, and that the circumstances attending the execution of the will constituted such fraud and improper conduct as to invalidate it.

The object of a hearing when a supposed will is presented for probate is to determine whether it has been executed with the formalities required by law, and the statute prescribes the amount and kind of proof which is sufficient to admit the will to record; that is, the testimony of two subscribing witnesses to the execution of the will and to their belief that the testator or testatrix was of sound mind. No other evidence is required and no contradictory evidence is admissible, though the statute reserves the right to show fraud, compulsion, or other improper conduct sufficient to invalidate the will. Therefore no part of the proceedingsfor the appointment of a conservator or of the testimony of Mrs. Weedman was admissible for the purpose of showing that she was not of sound mind.

[3] It is argued, however, that other circumstances in the case, in connection with the record, show fraud and improper conduct which should invalidate the will. These other circumstances are that Minor B. Neal, who was appointed conservator, but did not qualify, took Mrs. Weedman to the office of the attorney who wrote the will; that he witnessed it, together with the lawyer who wrote it, and who was Mrs. Weedman's attorney in the trial for the appointment of a conservator, and with two other persons who were witnesses on that trial. The conclusion that the action of these...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Phillips' Estate, In re
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 14, 1969
    ...Cases in Illinois are to the same effect on the question of the testamentary capacity of an adjudicated incompetent. (In re Estate of Weedman, 254 Ill. 504, 98 N.E. 956; Lewandowski v. Zuzak, 305 Ill. 612, 137 N.E. 500.) The Illinois authority is such that if the 1967 California will were p......
  • Waddy v. Grimes
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • June 23, 1930
    ... ...         18. TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES — Transactions between Trustee and Beneficiary — Dealings by Trustee with Trust Estate — Deed by Cestui Que Trust to Trustee — Presumption of Invalidity. — Even though a deed is made by a cestui que trust to his trustee equity ... ...
  • Waddy v. Grimes
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • June 23, 1930
  • Gilmer v. Brown
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • September 3, 1947
    ...inconsistent with capacity to make a will. Rice v. Rice, 50 Mich. 448, 15 N.W.545; Williams v. Robinson, 39 Vt. 267." In re Weedman's Estate, 254 Ill. 504, 98 N.E. 956, 957. "The adjudications of the probate court establishing facts necessary for the appointment of a conservator of the prop......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT