Lyon v. Townsend

• Decision Date: 25 June 1914
• Docket Number: 29.
• Citation: 91 A. 704,124 Md. 163
• Parties: LYON et al. v. TOWNSEND et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

91 A. 704

124 Md. 163

LYON et al. v. TOWNSEND et al.

No. 29.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 25, 1914

Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; Carroll T. Bond Judge.

"To be officially reported."

A caveat to the will of Lucy B. Townsend was filed by John L Lyon and another against William S. Townsend and Samuel C Townsend, executors, and from a judgment of the superior court sustaining the will, the caveators appeal. Reversed and new trial ordered.

Where contestants appealed from admission of a will to probate, and contestees claimed that any errors were harmless because there was no evidence to support a finding for contestants, the evidence will be reviewed to determine whether the jury might have reasonably concluded from the evidence that testatrix was mentally incompetent. Plaintiff during the trial introduced as a witness Dr. Robert W. B. Mayo, a duly licensed practitioner of medicine and surgery, who testified that he saw testatrix at a hospital on Sunday, February 25, 1912, the day prior to her operation, and again on the morning of the 26th after she had taken a quarter of a grain of codeine. After testifying to her condition generally, he was asked:

"Assuming a person in testatrix's condition had taken the night before at 10:30 a quarter of a grain of codeine, and in the morning between 9 and 9:15 another quarter of a grain of codeine, and just a little while before the will was made an eighth of a grain of morphine and 1/150 grain of atropin was injected hypodermically, what would be the nature and probable effect on her mental condition at the time she executed the paper?"

An objection to this question was sustained, and plaintiff took his first exception. The witness was further asked the following question:

"Assuming that testatrix had taken the drugs as specified in the previous question, about half an hour before the will was signed, what would be the effect of those drugs on her mental condition, if any, at the time she signed the paper?"

An objection to this question was also sustained, which constituted plaintiff's second exception. The same question was practically repeated, and an objection thereto was sustained, and an exception thereto constituted plaintiff's third exception.

Plaintiff's first, third, sixth, seventh, eighth, and tenth prayers were as follows:

Plaintiff's Prayer No. 1. If the jury find from the evidence that at the time of executing the paper writing mentioned in this case, and purporting to be the last will and testament of Lucy B. Townsend, and dated the 26th day of February, 1912, the said Lucy B. Townsend was not of sound and disposing mind and capable of making a valid deed or contract, then she was not in possession of that description of mental capacity which is required by law, and their verdict should be in favor of the caveators on the second issue, and their answer thereto should be, "No." And the jury are instructed that the meaning of the words "sound and disposing mind and capable of making a valid deed or contract," in respect to the disposition of property by last will and testament, is that the party making such will must at the time of making the same have fully understood the nature of the business in which she was engaged, and must have had sufficient capacity at said time to know and recollect her property and to make a disposition thereof with judgment and understanding with reference to the amount and situation of the property, and to recollect the relative claims of the different persons who were, or should have been, the objects of her bounty, and also sufficient capacity to understand the manner in which she, in fact, did dispose of her property. And the jury are further instructed that it is not necessary for them to find that Lucy B Townsend was insane in the popular sense of the word before they can adjudge her incapable of making a valid deed or contract.

Plaintiffs' Prayer No. 3. The court instructs the jury that she who is not capable to execute a valid deed or contract is, under the testamentary system of this state, incompetent to make a valid will or testament. It is not sufficient of itself that a testatrix should be able to describe her feelings or give correct answers to ordinary questions; her feelings at the moment may dictate her description of them, and the question may prompt the answers, and yet she may be inadequate to the transaction of other business, and unable to dispose of her estate with understanding and discretion.

Plaintiffs' Prayer No. 6. If the jury find that, before the paper writing, offered in evidence, and purporting to be the last will and testament of Lucy B. Townsend, and dated the 26th day of February, 1912, was executed by the said Lucy B. Townsend, she read said paper writing, and if they further find that, at the time of the execution of said paper writing, she was capable of understanding the business in which she was engaged and of executing a valid deed or contract, then the legal presumption is that she knew and understood the contents of said paper writing. But the jury are further instructed that this presumption is not conclusive, but may be rebutted; and the defendants are bound under the fourth issue to satisfy the jury that Lucy B. Townsend understood the contents of said paper writing; and, unless the jury are so satisfied, the verdict must be for the plaintiffs on the fourth issue, and their answer thereto must be, "No."

Plaintiffs' Prayer No. 7. The court instructs the jury that it was necessary for Lucy B. Townsend to know and understand the actual contents of the fourteenth item or residuary clause of the paper writing offered in evidence, and purporting to be the last will and testament of Lucy B. Townsend, dated the 26th day of February, 1912; and if they find that, before the said paper writing was executed by her, she read said paper writing, including the said fourteenth item or clause, and if they further find that, at the time of executing said paper writing, she was capable of understanding the business in which she was engaged and of executing valid deed or contract, then the legal presumption is that she knew and understood the contents of said paper writing, including said clause or item. But the jury are further instructed that this presumption is not conclusive, but may be rebutted; and the defendants are bound to satisfy the jury that Lucy B. Townsend understood the contents of said item or clause; and, unless the jury are so satisfied that she did understand the contents of said fourteenth item or clause, their answer to the fifth issue should be "Fourteenth item," even though they may find for the defendants on the second issue, and even though they may further find that Lucy B. Townsend knew and understood the remaining contents of said paper writing.

Plaintiffs' Prayer No. 8. The court instructs the jury that it was necessary for Lucy B. Townsend to know and understand the actual contents of the fourteenth item or residuary clause of the paper writing offered in evidence, and purporting to be the last will and testament of Lucy B. Townsend, dated the 26th day of February, 1912; and if they find that, before the said paper writing was executed by her, she read said paper writing, including the said fourteenth item or clause, and if they further find that, at the time of executing said paper writing, she was capable of understanding the business in which she was engaged, and of executing a valid deed or contract, then the legal presumption is that she knew and understood the contents of said paper writing, including the said clause or item; but the jury are further instructed that this presumption is not conclusive, but may be rebutted; and if the jury find that said Lucy B. Townsend instructed Mr. George R. Willis, the draftsman of said paper writing, that she wished the rest and residue of her estate, mentioned in the fourteenth item of said paper writing, to go to her nieces and nephews, and if they further find that, not having any nieces and nephews, by these words she meant some other persons, and that in reading said fourteenth item she failed to know and understand that said item did not give said rest and residue to the persons for whom she intended it, then, the jury are instructed that she did not know and understand said fourteenth item; and their answer to the fifth issue must be "Fourteenth item," even though they may find for the defendants on the second issue, and even though they may further find that Lucy B. Townsend knew and understood the remaining contents of said paper writing.

Plaintiffs' Prayer No. 9. The jury are instructed at the request of the plaintiffs, that if they shall find from the evidence in this case that all parts of the paper writing offered in evidence, dated the 26th day of February, 1912, and purporting to be the last will and testament of Lucy B. Townsend, were read by the said Lucy B. Townsend at a time when she was possessed of sufficient capacity to execute a valid deed or contract, and that said paper writing was then signed by the said Lucy B. Townsend in the presence of three witnesses, then the presumption of law is that the contents of said paper writing, and all parts thereof, were known to, and understood by, the said Lucy B. Townsend, and that it was not necessary that the said Lucy B. Townsend should have understood the legal operation and effect of said paper writing or any part thereof. But the jury are further instructed that this presumption may be rebutted, and, if the jury shall find from all the evidence in the case that the contents of the fourteenth item or residuary clause of her alleged will were, in fact, unknown to the said Lucy B. Townsend when she executed said paper writing, then the answer of the

...