In re Younggren's Estate

• Decision Date: 21 June 1938
• Docket Number: 44373.
• Citation: 280 N.W. 556,225 Iowa 348
• Parties: In re YOUNGGREN'S ESTATE.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

280 N.W. 556

225 Iowa 348

In re YOUNGGREN'S ESTATE.

No. 44373.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 21, 1938

Appeal from District Court, Page County; Earl Peters, Judge.

There was an action brought by certain parties interested to set aside the will of Emma C. Younggren, Deceased. There was a trial, at which evidence was offered, and the case submitted to the jury on the one question, whether or not the testatrix knew the contents of the will at the time of its execution. The jury returned a verdict for the contestants. A motion for new trial was made by proponents and granted by the lower court. From the ruling and order granting the new trial the contestants have appealed to this court. Opinion states the facts.

Affirmed.

L. L Orsborn, of Red Oak, and Stephens, Thornell & Millhone, of Clarinda, for appellants.

W. C Ratcliff and R. J. Swanson, both of Red Oak, and Levi Mattox of Shenandoah, for appellees.

MITCHELL, Justice.

Emma C. Younggren, a resident of Page County, died on May 1, 1936, at the age of 91. At the time of her death she was the owner of 1240 acres of land in Page County and had a fractional interest in 160 acres in South Dakota. In addition to the real estate she owned a large amount of personal property. Her husband had died many years before. She left surviving her as her only heirs the following persons: Her son, Luther, a daughter, Ellen, and certain grandchildren.

Shortly after the death of Emma Younggren there was filed in the office of the Clerk of the District Court of Page County a written instrument, dated July 6, 1932, purporting to be the last will and testament of Emma C. Younggren. On the 23d day of May, 1936, Lawrence W. Younggren, Herbert Younggren, Nellie V. Hunt, and Florence E. Anderson, filed their objections to the probate of the will, which contained the following:

" 1. That said instrument was obtained by undue influence and coercion by her son, Luther Younggren, upon the said Emma C. Younggren, and, therefore, said instrument is not the last will and testament of the said Emma C. Younggren, deceased, and should not be admitted to probate. 2. That at the time said instrument purports to have been executed by the said Emma C. Younggren she was nearly eighty-eight years of age, had been in feeble health for some time, and was not able to understand and fully appreciate the contents of said instrument purporting to be her last will and testament; that said instrument is unfair and unjust and provides for an unequal and unfair distribution of her property."

There was a denial by the proponents of the contestant's claim. The case proceeded to trial. Evidence was offered, and the court submitted to the jury the question of whether or not the testatrix knew the contents of the will at the time of its execution. The jury returned a verdict for the contestants. Proponents then made a motion for a new trial, setting out five specific grounds. The motion for a new trial was sustained generally by the court, and the contestants have appealed to this court from the ruling granting a new trial.

The only question in this appeal is, Did the trial court err in granting a new trial?

It is a rule of law that an order which grants a new trial on a numerous-pointed motion will not be interfered with on appeal when one of the grounds is that the verdict is contrary to the evidence and the record shows that the testimony is in conflict.

That is exactly what is confronting us in this case. There were five grounds in the motion, and one of them was that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. The motion was sustained generally.

In the case of Lange v. Nissen, 204 Iowa 1080, at page 1082, 216 N.W. 697, at page 698, we find:

" We have also said that, where the evidence is conflicting, the court's ruling on a motion for a new trial will not be interfered with where one of the grounds is the want of evidence to support the verdict, or that the verdict is contrary to the evidence. Mitchell v. Des Moines City R. Co., 161 Iowa 100, 141 N.W. 43.

Turning to the record, we find that the evidence is in serious conflict as to certain of the material facts. The motion for a new trial, among other grounds, states that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, and that there is no evidence warranting the submission of the case to the jury. Under the rules above announced under these circumstances we will not interfere with the ruling of the district court on this motion for a new trial."

In the very recent case of Morton v. Equitable Life Ins. Co., 218 Iowa 846, 254 N.W. 325, Justice Anderson, speaking for this court, said at pages 849, 850, 254 N.W. at page 326:

" The motion for a new trial was sustained by the court generally and without any comment or indication as to which ground or grounds of the motion it based its ruling. From such ruling, the defendant-appellant prosecutes this appeal.

It is the settled law of this state that the Appellate Court will not ordinarily interfere with the discretion of the trial court in granting a new trial. It must appear clearly that there has been an abuse of the discretion lodged in the trial court before this court will interfere with a ruling granting a new trial. The fact that the trial court has had the witnesses before it, heard their testimony, had opportunity to observe the effect of the evidence and the general conduct of the trial, places the trial court in a much better position to pass upon the question as to the right of a new...