Roberts v. Bidwell

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MOORE, C.J.
• Citation: Roberts v. Bidwell, 136 Mich. 191, 98 N.W. 1000 (Mich. 1904)
• Decision Date: 29 March 1904
• Parties: ROBERTS v. BIDWELL.

98 N.W. 1000

136 Mich. 191

ROBERTS v. BIDWELL.

Supreme Court of Michigan

March 29, 1904

Error to Circuit Court, Lenawee County; Guy M. Chester, Judge.

Application by H. Brant Roberts for the probate of the will of Jacob G Roberts, deceased. From a judgment of the circuit court in favor of Charles Bidwell, guardian, contestant, rendered on appeal from the judgment of the probate court admitting the will to probate, the proponent brings error. Reversed.

Thomas A. Wilson, Watts, Smith & Baldwin, and Grant Fellows, for appellant.

John E Bird, J. L. O'Mealey, and Fred B. Wood, for appellee.

MOORE C.J.

This is a will contest. Jacob G. Roberts, the deceased, was the father of four children, one of whom died when about 13 years old. The other three grew to manhood. They were Morris Carroll, and Brant. Morris died while serving in the army, in the year 1864, never having been married. Brant, the youngest son, remained at home until he was upwards of 35 years old. He was married in 1877. Carrol was also married, his wife died, and in 1889 he was adjudged insane and sent to the asylum. At this time he had children, who are still living. On March 6, 1895, Mr. Roberts went to Adrian, and had Mr. Weaver draw his will. It provided for the payment of his debts and funeral expenses. It gave 'to the trustees of the Presbyterian church of Tecumseh and their successors in office, the sum of four hundred dollars, to be by them invested, and the income thereof, annually thereafter, shall by them be paid to the minister in charge, to the end that my children and grandchilren may have the benefit of said church.' It gave to his niece the sum of $200. It provided for the erection on a lot owned by Carroll of a suitable monument for the use and benefit of Carroll, the cost not to exceed the sum of $600. It gave to his granddaughter certain articles of household furniture. It then provided 'in case my son Carroll Roberts comes into possession of all his faculties, and is restored to his full reason on or before the date of my death, and is living at that date, then and in such case, I hereby direct my executors to set aside and invest the sum of two thousand dollars, and the income thereof they shall, annually thereafter, pay to the said Carroll Roberts for and during the period of his natural life, and on the death of said Carroll the said principal sum of two thousand dollars shall be paid by said executors to my son, H. Brant Roberts or his heirs.' And it gave all the rest of his property to his son H. Brant Roberts. Mr. Roberts died in October, 1900, when 88 years of age, leaving this will still unrevoked. It was offered for probate and admitted. An appeal was taken to the circuit court. The case was tried before a jury, who disallowed the will. The proponent has brought the case here by writ of error.

Counsel for appellant groups the assignments of error as follows: '(1) Questions relating to the admissibility of evidence generally; (2) statements of the testator; (3) the proponent's requests, and the charge of the court as given.'

It is claimed the court erred in allowing witnesses to testify to their opinion of the mental incapacity of the testator without showing they were sufficiently acquainted with him to be able to form an opinion; citing White v. Bailey, 10 Mich. 155; O'Connor v. Madison, 98 Mich. 183, 57 N.W. 105; and Page v. Beach (Mich.) 95 N.W. 981. Counsel call attention particularly to the testimony of the witnesses Heck, Loven, and Haight. It will be sufficient to state the substance of what the record shows as to the acquaintance of one of these witnesses, as illustrative of all of them. Mr. Haight testified: 'Before that I lived in the township of Tecumseh about twenty four or five years. I am well acquainted with the people about there, and knew Jacob G. Roberts. When Jacob G. Roberts was Jacob G. Roberts, he was a strong, vigorous man, both mentally and bodily. I moved away from Tecumseh the year of the World's Fair, in the year 1893. I noticed a change in Mr. Roberts mentally before I went away. Q. Well, now, just relate to the jury some things that you saw, Mr. Haight. A. Well, I used to see him go past my house. That was the street he used to take every time he went to town and home, and prior to this time he used to go by quiet, and the last year or so that I lived there he went by a great many times noisy, singing and talking to himself, making those kind of demonstrations. Once when he went by, he lifted up his coat and brought out a lot of mail, and says, 'I have got my mail to-day.' I had said nothing to him about his mail or anything else. No one else asked him about his mail. I have seen him go by there in very hot weather with a big overcoat on, and a muffler around his neck, a big, heavy buffalo robe over his lap, and fur gloves on, and side curtains on his buggy. Maybe he was sick--I don't know--but he went by in that way. He came by on one occasion and accosted me while I was playing croquet. I was playing croquet with some friends in the yard in front of the house, and he wanted to sell me a horse. He had a colt he wanted to sell--a young horse that he had just been getting. I told him I hadn't any use for a horse, and I didn't want to buy any. He said he had just bought the colt, and he would like to sell it. He said the colt was the one that he had hitched to his buggy. As a matter of fact, he had an old horse hitched to his buggy, that he had driven for fourteen or fifteen years. He said he had bought the colt from Mr. Clarkson, and paid $150 for it. Q. During that last year, Mr. Haight, before you moved away from Tecumseh, from what you saw of him and what you talked with him, is it your judgment that he was mentally competent to transact any business of importance? A. Why, not generally, I shouldn't suppose he would be. While I lived in Tecumseh, Mr. Roberts had to pass my house in going to and from his home to Tecumseh.' On cross-examination, witness testified that he was never intimate with Mr. Roberts. 'Never had any conversation with him, except to pass the time of day. He lived a mile and one-half from me. I left the farm in March, 1893, and moved further away from him. After that I hardly ever saw him. There was no one in the carriage with him when I heard him talking. I didn't observe whether there was any one along the road, but didn't think he addressed his conversation to any one in particular. I don't know whether the old gentleman was sick, or not, when he was bundled up.' Redirect examination: 'After I moved down in Raisin--can't say whether it was in 1897 or not--Mr. Roberts asked me where Daniel Waring lived. At that time Daniel Waring was dead--had been for several years.' On recross-examination, witness testified that this last conversation might have been at the time of the guardianship proceedings. 'I have no recollection of ever having any conversation with Mr. Roberts.' This witness showed as little acquaintance as any of those permitted to be witnesses. In Prentis v. Bates, 93 Mich. 234, 53 N.W. 153, 17 L. R. A. 494, Justice Montgomery, speaking for the court, said: 'It was competent to show by witnesses that decedent was erratic, eccentric, rambling and disconnected in her conversation, flighty in her notions, unsettled; that her manner was excitable; that she could not comprehend connected conversation; that she ran about the house screaming, with her dress open in the front, etc. These circumstances, of themselves, might not have been sufficient to show testamentary incapacity, but they were competent to be considered with the other evidences offered in the case for that purpose. It cannot be contended in this case that there was not enough testimony to justify submitting to the jury the question of mental incapacity, and, where this is the case, circumstances are often admissible which may coexist with a perfectly sound mind. It seldom occurs that any one circumstance or act of a party will of itself show insanity. On the contrary, the judgment of his acquaintances, as well as of medical experts, must be, and is, made up from circumstances and acts trivial in themselves, but which, when considered together, carry conviction of mental unsoundness. Reference is made to the case of Fraser v. Jennison, 42 Mich. 206 [3 N.W. 882], and language may be found in the opinion of the court in that case which apparently gives some support to the contention of proponents. But we think this court has never evinced the purpose of creating one rule of evidence which shall apply in will cases, but which is not to be adopted in any other. It is much better than that any such incongruity should become ingrafted in our law, that it be left to the trial judge to guard carefully the rights of legatees by full and adequate instructions upon the degree of mental competency requisite to make a valid will, accompanied by any necessary caution against giving undue weight to circumstances which, while more consistent with insanity than sanity, yet may coexist with either condition of mind. If...