Stacer v. Hogan

• Decision Date: 05 November 1889
• Docket Number: 14,587
• Citation: 22 N.E. 990,120 Ind. 207
• Parties: Stacer et al. v. Hogan et al
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

22 N.E. 990

120 Ind. 207

Stacer et al. v. Hogan et al

No. 14,587

Supreme Court of Indiana

November 5, 1889

Original Opinion of June 8, 1889, Reported at: 120 Ind. 207.

OPINION

Coffey, J.

An earnest petition, supported by an able brief, has been filed in this cause praying for a rehearing.

In view of the importance of the case, and of the numerous questions involved in it, we have again gone carefully over the voluminous record in the cause, and find no reason for changing our opinion upon any of the questions decided in the original opinion.

It is claimed, however, that there are some questions involved in the case which were not decided in the opinion heretofore handed down. It is earnestly argued that there is a total failure of evidence to establish the charge of undue influence. We did not, when considering the case originally nor do we now, deem it necessary to pass upon that question in determining whether or not the evidence supports the verdict. The complaint charges both mental incapacity and undue influence. The evidence tends to support the charge of mental incapacity, and as the verdict is general it will withstand an attack upon the ground that it is not supported by the evidence.

It is claimed also that the third instruction given by the court at the request of the appellees, is erroneous and must have misled the jury. This instruction, as it comes to us, is somewhat obscure, but we can not place upon it the construction claimed by the appellants. There is evidently the omission of some word or words, either in drafting the instruction or in making a copy of it. Without supplying such words the instruction is wholly without meaning. Supplying the words necessary to give the instruction any intelligent meaning, we understand it to inform the jury that, as a general rule, the symptoms of insanity are, in a degree, incapable of description, but are sometimes quite obvious. They may exist in such a subtle form as to elude the observation of the most experienced physician. Whether this be so, as also the belief in the existence of mere illusion or hallucinations, the creatures purely of the imagination, such as no sane man could believe in, are questions of fact, as well as the proper inference arising upon them, for the jury; and they may furnish unequivocal evidence of insanity. If they do, and enter into the execution of a will, it may be avoided for partial insanity of the testator. Even after supplying the words necessary to give this instruction meaning, it can not be said that it is free from criticism; but however this may be, the instruction attempts to announce a merely abstract principle of law, and when construed with the other instructions in the cause, there is no reasonable ground for the belief that it misled the jury.

At the proper time the appellants asked the court to give to the jury the following instruction: "The court instructs the jury that there is no evidence in this case conducing to show that the will in contest was procured by undue influence, and upon that issue they should find for the defendants."

In cases where the evidence for the plaintiff is of such a character as that, taking it as true, and giving to it all the inferences that may be legally drawn therefrom, it would not support a verdict in his favor, the court may direct the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. McClaren v. Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co., 83 Ind. 319; Koerner v. State, 98 Ind. 7.

But in this case it can not be said that there is no evidence, either direct or circumstantial, tending to prove undue influence. There is some evidence tending in that direction, but whether it is sufficient to sustain a...