Schweitzer v. Bean
| Decision Date | 19 June 1922 |
| Docket Number | 64 |
| Citation | 242 S.W. 63,154 Ark. 228 |
| Parties | SCHWEITZER v. BEAN |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Boone Circuit Court; J. M. Shinn, Judge, reversed.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
E G. Mitchell and Shouse & Rowland, for appellant.
Full faith and credit shall be given to the judgments of sister States. Art. 4, sec. 1, Const. U. S.; 134 U.S. 607; 193 F 332; 40 Cyc. 1237; 52 S.W. 296; 45 S.W. 677; 27 S.W. 1009. The judgment of probate in Dade County, Florida, was conclusive as to all matters of personal property, the doctrine of "lex domicilii" controlling. 143 Ark. 192; 103 Tenn. 1; 52 S.W. 296.
The action of the court to vacate and testify was both arbitrary and prejudicial.
Instructions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, given by the court were abstract and misleading. A belief based on evidence, however slight is not a delusion. 87 Ark. 280.
Every man has a right to dispose of his property by will, as he pleases, within statutory limitations. 87 Ark. 243.
The evidence was not sufficient to sustain a verdict against the will. 160 S.W. 1071; 62 P. 605; 169 S.W. 852; 66 N.E. 371; 192 Ill. 525; 61 N.E. 652; 25 P. 769; 31 P. 453; 33 P. 542.
George J. Crump, for appellee.
The motion to dismiss and the demurrer to the jurisdiction of the court were properly overruled. 143 Ark. 192.
This is a contest, originating in the courts of Boone County, of the will of L. H. Schweit-zer, who died on November 16, 1920, in the State of Florida, where he resided.
The testator owned property, both real and personal, in Boone County, and after the last will and testament was regularly probated in the State of Florida it was filed for probate in the probate court of Boone County.
Appellee, Mrs. Elsie Bean, who was the daughter of the testator, appeared and contested the will, and the cause was tried in the circuit court of Boone County on appeal. The trial before a jury resulted in a verdict against the validity of the will, and a judgment was rendered accordingly, from which an appeal has been prosecuted by the proponents of the will.
The ground of the contest is that the testator was mentally incapacitated to execute a will, in that he labored under an insane delusion that appellee, his daughter, had made statements derogatory to his moral character and had slandered him.
The first point urged by appellants is that the devolution of the personal property owned by the testator in this State is governed by the laws of the domicile of the State where the testator resided, and that, since the will had been duly admitted to probate in that State, a contest of the will, so far as it concerns the personal property, cannot be had in this State, for the reason that this would be in violation of the requirement of the Federal Constitution () which provides that "full faith and credit shall be given by each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other State."
This question has been decided against the contention of appellants by this court in the recent case of Selle v. Rapp, 143 Ark. 192, 220 S.W. 662. It is true that real estate only was involved in that case, but the court construed our statute to give the right of contest here with respect to any property in this State. It necessarily follows from that decision that a testament relating to personalty as well as real property in this State may be contested here.
It is also contended that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict.
It appears from the testimony that Schweitzer formerly resided at Harrison, in Boone County, and that many years ago he and his wife, the mother of appellee and two other children, were separated and were divorced. Appellee and the other children took sides with their mother and went away with her, first removing to the State of Kansas and later to the State of Missouri. The testator and his wife divided all of the property he had at that time in an amicable adjustment made between them. The only complaint made about that incident was that appellee claims now that the testator took from her the sum of one hundred dollars which she had earned in raising and selling pigs from a sow which her father had given her.
It also appears that Schweitzer visited appellee once in Missouri and that, to a certain extent, better relations were restored between them, but that there was no complete restoration of confidence and affection.
During the spring and summer of the year 1916, which was about fifteen years after the separation between Schweitzer and appellee's mother, Schweitzer sustained a fracture of one of the bones of his leg, and was confined to his room and bed for a considerable time. He was unmarried at that time and was living in Harrison with a family named Minyard, but the members of that family were not related to him. Appellee heard of her father's misfortune, and came to Harrison for the purpose of making a visit. She staved there about a week, and she testified in the trial below that during that period she spent about half the time with her father, and that she endeavored to induce him to take possession of another home and furnish it and permit her to stay with him and nurse him, and that he declined to move from the home of the Minyards. She denied that anything unfriendly took place between herself and her father during that visit. Appellee never saw her father again after she left Harrison on that occasion. She went back to her home in Missouri, and she introduced two letters which he wrote to her during the autumn after her visit to Harrison. Those letters seem to be the basis of appellee's contention that her father was laboring under an insane delusion and they are of sufficient importance in the discussion to copy them in full. The date of each letter is shown and they read as follows:
"FATHER." "Harrison, Arkansas, Dec. 8, 1916.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibson v. Gibson
... ... testamentary act. Wharton & Stille, Med. Jur., vol. 1, p. 84, ... § 83; Id., p. 85, § 85; Id., 117, ... § 13; Schweitzer v. Bean, 154 Ark ... 2. The ... deed, as a matter of law, cannot be canceled under the facts ... and circumstances of this ... ...
- Sloan v. Newman
-
Taylor v. United States
...dominated by it at the time the will was executed. * * *" See also McWilliams v. Neill, 202 Ark. 1087, 155 S.W.2d 344; Schweitzer v. Bean, 154 Ark. 228, 242 S.W. 63. In Brown v. Emerson, 205 Ark. 735, at page 737, 170 S.W.2d 1019, at page 1021, the Court quoted with approval the following "......
-
High v. Sharp
...and cause remanded. John Mayes, for appellants. There is no substantial evidence to sustain the verdict, but only bare inference. 154 Ark. 228. The undisputed evidence positively that the will was executed and signed as required by law. The appellee has failed to meet the burden resting upo......