Mitchell v. Parker

• Decision Date: 17 December 1931
• Docket Number: 2 Div. 995.
• Citation: 224 Ala. 149,138 So. 832
• Parties: MITCHELL v. PARKER.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

138 So. 832

224 Ala. 149

MITCHELL v. PARKER.

2 Div. 995.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 17, 1931

Rehearing Denied Jan. 21, 1932.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sumter County; Benj. F. Elmore, Judge.

Petition of James A. Mitchell to probate the will of Agnes S. Parker deceased, contested by R. S. Parker. From a decree for contestant, proponent appeals.

Affirmed.

J. F Aldridge, of Eutaw, for appellant.

Jenkins Jackson and Patton & Patton, all of Livingston, for appellee.

KNIGHT J.

James A. Mitchell, appellant here, proponent in the court below filed for probate, in the probate court of Sumter county, an instrument in writing purporting to be the last will and testament of Agnes S. Parker, late an inhabitant of Sumter county.

On the filing of the application for the probate of this instrument Robert S. Parker, a brother of the decedent, filed a contest, resisting the probate of the instrument, setting up three separate grounds: (1) That the will is not properly executed: (2) that the testatrix, Miss Agnes S. Parker, was of unsound mind at the time of the execution of the will; and (3) that the testatrix, Miss Agnes S. Parker, was unduly influenced against the said R. S. Parker, at the time of the execution of said will.

The contestant made demand in writing for a jury trial, and the cause was transferred to the circuit court of Sumter county for trial, but the record is silent as to which side requested the transfer. A trial was had in the circuit court with a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment sustaining the contest, and from this judgment the present appeal is prosecuted by the proponent.

From the evidence in the cause, it appears that Miss Parker and the contestant were brother and sister, and that Miss Parker was a single woman, with the contestant as her only brother.

It would serve no useful purpose to attempt to set out in detail the evidence in the cause. Only one witness, the contestant, testified that the testatrix was of unsound mind. The other witnesses introduced by contestant testified to facts which tended to show that the testatrix for many years labored under hallucinations and insane delusions upon some subjects, and that this condition had existed long prior to the date of the execution of the will in 1909, and continued down to the time of her death. The tendency of contestant's evidence was to the effect that Miss Parker was obsessed with the idea that the people were trying to move the town of Coatopa, and that they were trying to take her property, and that her brother was in league with them for the purpose of ruining her financially, and that he was working at all times against her and her best interest. She owned real estate at Coatopa, and was distressed greatly by the idea that certain people in and around that place were determined to destroy her financially. The testimony for contestant further tended to show that there was no foundation in fact for her fears and apprehensions, or that her brother was trying to injure her.

The contestant introduced in evidence some letters received by him from his sister. It will serve no good or useful purpose to quote the language of any of these messages, but at least one of them shows the condition of the mind of the writer with reference to some of the people at and near Coatopa. There was testimony tending to show no basis in fact for these expressions against anybody, and the testimony of the brother tends to show that this mental delusion on the part of his sister reached out to and included him for the reason, without foundation in fact, that she claimed he was colluding with her supposed enemies to ruin her.

The testimony offered on behalf of proponent, in rebuttal, tended to show that the testatrix was mentally sound at all times. The bill of exceptions does not purport to set out all the evidence.

While the evidence for contestant is, as disclosed by the bill of exceptions, rather unsatisfactory, yet no motion for a new trial was made thereby to enable the court below to pass upon its sufficiency, and we can here only consider such questions as are presented for review; only a few principles of law are involved in this case, and they are so well understood that it scarcely seems necessary to state them.

The only ground of contest insisted upon before the jury was that the testatrix at the time of the execution of the will in question was of unsound mind-insane. The main insistence was that she suffered from insane delusions, and that these were directed principally against the people in and around the little village of Coatopa, where testatrix owned real estate,...