Sanger v. McDonald
Decision Date | 22 April 1907 |
Citation | 102 S.W. 690,82 Ark. 432 |
Parties | SANGER v. MCDONALD |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Howard Circuit Court; James S. Steel, Judge; reversed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
Will Sanger, Laura Sanger, Blanche Withrow, Libbie Sanger and George Sanger were proponents of the will of Mrs. Mary J Johnson.
Mollie E. McDonald and Lula Wolff contested the will. They alleged that the testatrix died seized of a large estate of real estate and personal property situated in Arkansas and Texas and of the value of $ 41,000. That the paper purporting to be the last will of the testatrix does not provide for the children of the deceased, according to the natural love and inclination of a mother, and without any just cause shown or known purports to give all her personal property and all but a very small portion of her real estate to the proponents except Geo. Sanger, leaving Geo. Sanger and contestants unprovided for. Among other allegations are these:
The probate court admitted the will to probate, and contestants appealed. In the circuit court the cause was submitted to the jury upon the issue as to whether or not the paper admitted to probate by the judgment of the probate court was the will of Mary J. Johnson.
Appellee contended that it was not her will because of fraud upon and undue influence over her by her son, Will Sanger, by which she was induced to execute the purported will.
Mrs Mary J. Johnson at the time of her death owned property which may be listed, and conservatively valued, under the evidence as follows:
The 1-5 interest in Stifft corner, Little Rock,
$ 6,000.00
Less mortgage
2,250.00
$ 3,750.00
Six (6) lots in block 281, Little Rock
$ 4,800.00
Centennial lots, Little Rock
2,000.00
Texas lands
3,000.00
Nashville homestead
1,500.00
Faulkner County 80 acres
350.00
Personalty
1,000.00
Total
There were some other tracts in Pulaski County besides the lots above mentioned, but the number of acres was not ascertained from the proof.
The proponents and contestants were children of Mrs. Johnson. The will propounded gave to contestants, each, a lot and a half (75 feet) in block 281 in the city of Little Rock. Each tract given contestants was worth about $ 1,200. She gave her son Geo. Sanger, $ 10. But he is not contesting. She gave her three then single daughters the home place in Nashville, valued at $ 1,500, and devised the residue of her estate, real and personal, to these three daughters and her son, Will.
The circumstances of the execution of the alleged will, which we will hereafter call the will, are substantially as follows: Mrs. Johnson was afflicted with cancer, and was on her deathbed. She lived in Nashville, Arkansas. Her son Will and three unmarried daughters were living with her. Will had lived with his mother practically all his life till her death. For fifteen years he had assisted her, to some extent, in looking after her property. The contestants were married, and lived away from their mother's home. They had been sent for, and were at her home when the will was executed. According to their testimony, they did not know that the will was to be executed until their brother called them into the room, apart from the room where their mother was, and said to them: "As mother is growing weaker, I thought best to make her will, and as everything she has, even to the home place, is heavily incumbered, I thought best to give you a thousand dollars a piece." Mrs. McDonald protested, and said she would go in and tell her mamma what her brother was trying to do; whereupon Will said: "No, before I would have you go in and approach mamma on the subject, I would take a razor and cut my right arm off." Mrs. McDonald asked her brother if their mother still owned the lots in Little Rock, and he then said: "Yes, that is the only property mother has that is not heavily incumbered." Mrs. McDonald said: "Instead of giving me a thousand dollars, give a hundred feet off of block 281 in Little Rock." Will replied that before he could do this he would have to go and consult Dr. Corn, the attending physician. Will then "took his leave," and came back into the room and said: "I have just had a conversation with Dr. Corn, and he advises me not to give more than seventy-five feet, as this is valuable property." Contestants then say that Will made a memorandum on some paper, and Mr. Rodgers, an attorney was sent for. When Mr. Rodgers came, Will handed him the data he had prepared, and from this Mr. Rodgers wrote the will. Mrs. McDonald, who was present when the will was signed, said:
The contestants testified that their mother had promised them some time before that they should have their share of the estate. They thought, on account of the representations made by their brother as to the incumbrances on the estate, that they were getting their share. Their brother represented that the 75 feet given them in the will was more than their share. These lots were worth about $ 1,200 each.
Will Sanger gave the following testimony concerning the preparation and execution of the will:
Witness then goes into detail as to the conversation that took place between himself and his sisters, the contestants, in which he says that he fully explained to them the situation, giving them correct and accurate information concerning the various tracts of land owned by his mother, and the value thereof, and the incumbrances thereon. He contradicts positively and sharply the testimony of his sisters, and according to his testimony said that his sister, Mrs. McDonald, said that she would be satisfied with a lot and a half off of block 281 in Little Rock, and that his sister, Mrs, Wolff, did not want anything, but that he insisted that she have something. His testimony then continues as follows:
The witness further testified as follows:
Dr Corn testified in part as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Brock v. State
-
Smith v. Boswell
... ... life or that he was surrounded by them in confidential ... relation with them at the time of its execution." See ... Sanger v. McDonald, 87 Ark. 148, 112 S.W ... The ... question was improper. The witness did not testify to any ... facts that tended ... ...
-
Paul v. State
... ... State, 72 Ark. 461, 82 S. W. 490; Gossett v. State, 65 Ark. 389, 46 S. W. 537; Railway Co. v. Harrison, 76 Ark. 430, 89 S. W. 53; Sanger v. McDonald, 82 Ark. 432, 102 S. W. 690; Gaston v. State, 95 Ark. 362, 128 S. W. 1033; Rogers v. State, 60 Ark. 76, 29 S. W. 894, 31 L. R. A. 465, 46 ... ...
- Sanger v. McDonald