Meeker v. Meeker

• Decision Date: 08 May 1888
• Citation: 37 N.W. 773,74 Iowa 352
• Parties: MEEKER ET AL. v. MEEKER ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

74 Iowa 352

37 N.W. 773

MEEKER ET AL.

v.MEEKER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 8, 1888.

Appeal from district court, Tama county; JOHN L. STEARNS, Judge.

This is a proceeding involving the validity of an instrument in writing claimed to be the last will and testament of William Meeker, deceased. The plaintiffs, David, Lathrup, Amos A., and Clark Meeker, and Alexander Johnson, being four of his sons and one son-in-law, are the legatees and devisees under the alleged will, and they presented it for probate. Two of them are named therein as executors. The defendants, Samuel and Lewis Meeker and Sarah Bricker, are two sons and a daughter of the testator who were not made beneficiaries under the will, and they contest it upon the grounds that it was obtained by undue influence, and that the decedent did not have sufficient mental capacity to make a valid will. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict that the writing signed by the deceased was not his will. From a judgment on the verdict plaintiffs appeal.Stivers & Strong and D. D. Applegate, for appellants.

Struble & Stiger, for appellees.

ROTHROCK, J.

1. The writing claimed to be a will was made and executed in August, 1886, and William Meeker died in October of the same year, aged 77 years. He removed from Warren county, Ohio, to this state in the year 1856, and for many years prior to and up to the time of his death he owned and lived upon a farm in Tama county. By the will in question he disinherited the contestants. The evidence introduced upon the trial was directed mainly to his mental capacity at the time the will was made. There is no conflict in the evidence that, for some years before the will was made, the old man was in very feeble health, and that he had to a certain extent lost much of his former capacity for the transaction of business. At one time, by an arrangement among his children, a neighbor was selected to hold certain of his bank certificates of deposit, and transact business to some extent for him. In addition to his feeble condition he had lost his sight of one eye, and the sight of the other was seriously affected. His condition was such that legal proceedings were instituted involving his mental capacity. This led to an examination of him by physicians and others for the purpose of ascertaining his condition. These parties were called, and examined as witnesses, and, as is usual in such cases, there was quite a conflict in their testimony. The first complaint urged in argument by appellants' counsel is that the court erred in rulings upon the admission and exclusion of evidence. Counsel for contestants propounded the following questions to witnesses for contestants: “How was his appearance? What makes you think he did not know you on this day? Do you mean that his mind was simply weakened, or that it was impaired in some of his faculties? Did he get worse or better up to the last time you saw him? You may state whether he could or could not hold a conversation--an extended conversation.” These questions were objected to by counsel for proponents, and the objections were overruled. The witnesses to whom the questions were propounded were not physicians. They were neighbors of the decedent who were well acquainted with him, and were competent to give opinions as to his sanity. It is claimed that these questions called for opinions upon questions of which the jury was equally qualified to judge, if possessed of the same facts as the witnesses. We think the rulings of the court were correct. It seems to us quite plain that, if the witness could not reproduce the appearance of the decedent, he could not detail facts so as to put the jury in his place, so to speak. There must of necessity be expressions of opinions by witnesses in regard to the appearance, conversation, and acts of one whose mental capacity is brought in question. Yahn v. City of Ottumwa, 60 Iowa, 429, 15 N. W. Rep. 257.

2. Other witnesses were allowed to detail conversations had in the presence of the decedent regarding the condition of his mind. They were such as would naturally call for some response from him, and he remained silent. It is insisted that these conversations were incompetent evidence because the witnesses did not state that decedent heard what was said. There is no showing made that his hearing was defective, and we think it was a question for the jury whether he heard the conversations.

3. Both sides introduced physicians who had examined the decedent with the view of making up an opinion as to the condition of his mind. Those who were introduced by proponents expressed the opinion that he was of sound mind. To one of them counsel for contestants propounded the following question on cross-examination: “Supposing Mr. Meeker had been a man of fair, ordinary ability all his life, a man of fair, ordinary intelligence and mental capacity, and providing for a year or so prior to a given date his mental faculties were more or less impaired,--such as the faculty of memory impaired, and forgetful,--couldn't remember things, and he couldn't remember some of his nearest neighbors who have resided near to him for twelve or thirteen years,--providing his children, or some of them, should have a meeting in his presence, and state his mind was in such a condition that he was not any longer fit and capable of transacting his own business, and they should select an agent or guardian to take charge of his business and papers,--such as bank checks, drafts, certificates of deposit, and notes,--and should turn them over to the agent in his presence, and the old gentleman didn't make any objection to that, or to the assertion that...