Robinson v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 13 October 1902
• Docket Number: 16
• Citation: 53 A. 253,203 Pa. 400
• Parties: Robinson, Appellant, v. Robinson [*]
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

53 A. 253

203 Pa. 400

Robinson, Appellant, v. Robinson ^[*]

No. 16

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

October 13, 1902

Argued March 18, 1902 [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Appeal, No. 16, Jan. T., 1902, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. Delaware Co., March T., 1901, No. 210, on verdict for defendants, in case of John B. Robinson and A. Welling Wyckoff, Executors of Letitia Robinson, Deceased, v. Anna R Robinson and Gerald O H. Robinson and William J. McClure, Guardian of Mary Parker Robinson. Affirmed.

Issue devisavit vel non. Before JOHNSON, P.J.

The issues framed were as follows:

1. Whether the signature to said paper writing is the signature of the said Letitia Robinson.

2. Whether the said paper writing was executed by the said Letitia Robinson.

3. Whether the said Letitia Robinson was of sound and well-disposing mind, memory and understanding at the time the said paper writing is alleged to have been executed by her.

4. If the said paper writing were executed by her, the said Letitia Robinson, whether the execution thereof was procured by duress, imposition, and undue influence exercised over the mind of said deceased.

5. Whether the said alleged will was procured by undue influence of John B. Robinson.

The court admitted under objection and exception declarations of John B. Robinson, the principal beneficiary.

The court also admitted under objection and exception declarations of the testatrix, relating to the management of her estate by her son.

The court also admitted under objection and exception evidence of testatrix's weakness of mind as affecting the question of undue influence.

The court also admitted under objection and exception a large number of papers relating to the management of the estate of testatrix.

Plaintiff presented these points:

1. There is no evidence in this cause, which can in law impeach the genuineness of the signature of Letitia Robinson to the will, and the verdict of the jury, upon the first question of the issue, must be in favor of the plaintiffs. Answer: We answer that this is affirmed, so far as it relates to the mark. As it relates to the signature, it is a question for the jury.

2. There is no evidence in this cause which the law can recognize as proof that the will was not executed by Letitia Robinson, and the verdict of the jury upon the second question of the issue must be in favor of the plaintiffs. Answer: That is affirmed.

3. There is no evidence in this cause which the law can recognize as proof that the will was not executed by Letitia Robinson, and the verdict of the jury upon the second question of the issue must be in favor of the plaintiffs. Answer: We say to you when she signed that mark, that there is evidence sufficient to say to you that it was executed by her. The evidence will be for you whether she understood it, and whether or not she was unduly influenced.

4. There is no evidence in the cause which would warrant the jury in finding that the testatrix was not of sound and well-disposing mind, memory and understanding at the time of the execution of the will, and the verdict of the jury upon the third question of the issue must be in favor of the plaintiffs. Answer: That point is affirmed. There is no evidence in this cause upon which the court would sustain a verdict against the will for want of testamentary capacity. Therefore, we affirm that point. But the question of the condition of her mind, however, enters into the consideration upon the other questions which we have submitted to you.

5. There is no evidence in the cause which would warrant the jury in finding that the execution of the will was procured by duress, imposition and undue influence exercised over the mind of the testatrix, and upon the fourth question of the issue the verdict must be in favor of the plaintiffs. Answer: That is refused. That is a question for you, whether or not this will was procured by duress, imposition and undue influence exercised over the mind of the testatrix, and the whole question turns upon that. It is the great issue -- did she understand, was she unduly influenced?

6. There is no evidence in the cause which would warrant the jury in finding that the will of the decedent was procured by undue influence of John B. Robinson, and the verdict of the jury upon the fifth question of the issue must be in favor of the plaintiffs. Answer: That is refused. It is a question for you whether or not this will was procured by the undue influence of John B. Robinson, and you will apply the testimony in the cause to that question as I have heretofore laid it down.

7. The court is asked to define undue influence to the jury, and to distinguish it from the lawful influence which a son may properly exercise over the mind of his mother in procuring a will in his favor.

The Court: Is it counsel's desire to have that definition read again to the jury?

Mr. Broomall. Yes.

Answer: This is a prayer to the court to define to the jury undue influence. Undue influence is the use by one in whom a confidence is reposed by another who holds a real or apparent authority over him, of such confidence or authority for the purpose of obtaining an unfair advantage of his weakness of mind or of his necessities or distress, or to constrain him to do that which he would not have done without the exercise of such control. It is that influence which compels one to do that which is against his will from fear, the desire of peace, or some feeling which is tantamount to force or fear. Undue influence does not necessarily involve physical force or violence. It implies something more than mere advice, argument and persuasion. Advice, argument, and persuasion, if they convince the reason and move the affections only, leaving the will free and unfettered, are not undue influence. But even advice, argument and persuasion, if they be so importunate and persistent and so operate as to subdue and subordinate the will of the testator to the will of another, till the testamentary instrument speaks not his own mind and his own purpose, but the wish and purpose of another, such advice, argument and persuasion, so operating and with such effect are undue influence. To be undue influence the influence must at least amount to moral coercion. But if it amounts to moral coercion it is undue influence, no matter how or by what instrumentalities produced. A son may ask a mother to make a will in his favor, may persuade her to do so, may be importunate in his persuasion, and if the effect of such persuasion is such as only to move the affections, sense of duty or judgment, it is not undue influence, but if the persuasion was so importunate or persistent, and so operated as to amount to moral coercion and to subdue and subordinate the will of the mother to his will, and this coercion operated at the time of the testamentary act, it would be undue influence.

This undue influence must operate at the time of the testamentary act. It may have been exerted before, but it must be in operation at the time of the testamentary act, and must destroy the free will of the testator. It is not, however, necessary that the jury should know what particular agencies were employed to overcome the free will of the testator, and while you cannot find this fact of undue influence upon mere suspicion or surmise, it is not necessary that you be able to lay your finger on any particular act of undue influence exerted over the testatrix. It is enough if, upon all the evidence, you are convinced that the paper does not speak the true and voluntary purpose of the maker. It is not necessary that the fact of undue influence be proved by direct evidence, but it may be proved by circumstances. From the surroundings of the testator, the character of the will, the family relations, the conditions of the health and mind of the testator, his dependency upon and subjection to the control of the person supposed to have wielded the influence, the opportunity and disposition of that person to wield it, the acts and declarations of such person, the connection of the person wielding that influence with the preparation, making, or execution of the will.

8. All influence arising from the relationship of mother and son are lawful and proper, and it is even lawful and proper for a son to importunately persuade his mother to make a will in his favor. Answer: This point is affirmed, with the exception that importunity such as the testatrix had not the courage or ability to resist, or carried to the degree in which the free agency of the testatrix is destroyed, will constitute undue influence. Importunity less than that is lawful.

9. Undue influence consists of threats, violence, circumvention or fraud, exercised over the mind of the decedent in the preparation and execution of the will, by which the decedent was coerced or misled into doing what she did not desire to do. Answer: This point is affirmed, to which we may add the definition given to you in the answer to the seventh point, which we have just read to you at length.

Defendants presented these points:

1. In order to make a valid will the law requires that the testator shall be of sound and disposing mind, memory and understanding, and that he shall have a full and intelligent knowledge and understanding of the act in which he is engaged; shall have a full knowledge of the property he possesses; an intelligent perception and understanding of the disposition he desires to make of it and of the persons and objects he desires shall be the recipients of his bounty, and if, therefore, the jury find that Letitia Robinson at the time of the making of this alleged will did not have these legal requirements, then the verdict should be against the will and in favor of the defendants. Answer: That is...