Thomas v. Cortland
| Decision Date | 02 December 1913 |
| Citation | 89 A. 414,121 Md. 670 |
| Parties | THOMAS et al. v. CORTLAND. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; Chas. W. Heuisler Judge.
Caveat by Lora M. L. Cortland Thomas and others against the probate of the will of James Cortland opposed by James Wakefield Cortland. Judgment for defendant and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, THOMAS, PATTISON, URNER STOCKBRIDGE, and CONSTABLE, JJ.
Edgar Allan Poe, of Baltimore (J. Kemp Bartlett, L. B. Keene Claggett, and R. Howard Bland, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.
W Thomas Kemp and George Whitelock, both of Baltimore, for appellee.
This appeal is by the caveators, plaintiffs, from the ruling of the superior court of Baltimore city in the trial of issues concerning the will of James Cortland. The record contains but one bill of exceptions, and that refers only to the action of the court below in rejecting the plaintiffs' prayer and to the granting of the "court's instruction," both of which relate to the issue of undue influence.
In order to understand the question we are to consider, it will be necessary to refer briefly to some of the evidence in the case, But, in doing so, we are not to be understood as emphasizing that part of the evidence to which we shall allude, or as expressing any opinion in regard to its weight.
Where the evidence is legally sufficient to meet the burden of proof, but is conflicting, it is exclusively within the province of the jury to weigh it, under proper instruction from the court upon the law applicable to the facts of the case, and the jury's conclusions of fact cannot be reviewed on appeal, and must stand unless there was substantial error in the ruling of the court.
The testator executed the will in question when he was 84 years old, and died about 2 years later at his home on Park avenue, in Baltimore city, leaving an estate valued at about $85,000. The will was dated the 1st of June, 1908, and at that time the testator had one son, James Wakefield Cortland, the appellee, a daughter, Mrs. Norton, and four grandchildren, viz., Mrs. Diggs, Mrs. Thomas, Ethel C. Cortland, and Clinton W. Cortland, children of Samuel C. Cortland, who died in 1904. The entire estate was left to the son, who was unmarried, and the daughter, who was a widow without children, both of whom were living with the testator when the will was executed. At that time Mrs. Norton was in bad health and died in 1909. The will provided that, in case she died before the testator, her share of the estate should go to his son, and under the terms of the will he will receive the whole estate. Mrs. Diggs, Mrs. Thomas, and Clinton W. Cortland filed a caveat, and the usual issues were sent to the superior court of Baltimore city for trial. The real ground upon which they assail the validity of the will is that it was procured by undue influence exerted by James Wakefield Cortland, the caveatee.
According to the evidence produced by the plaintiffs, their father deserted them in 1896, and their mother was compelled to resort to keeping a boarding house in Washington, D. C. They had been educated at the expense of the testator, and Mrs. Diggs and Mrs. Thomas lived with him for some years before they were married. He had always been fond of them, and was "on affectionate terms with" them at the time of his death. Mrs. Diggs' husband failed in business in 1902, and he then moved to Philadelphia, where he and his family lived "in straightened circumstances" from that time until after the death of the testator. Mrs. Thomas, whose marriage was an unhappy one, lived with her mother in Washington. Her health became seriously impaired, and from 1907 to 1909 she was practically confined to her bed. The testator frequently stated that he loved his grandchildren and that he wanted to help them, but that his son did not want him to do so. He told Mrs. Diggs in the spring of 1908 that he had made provision for his grandchildren; that his son did not want him to do it, and wanted the testator to leave his estate to him to provide for them; but that he would see that it was carried out his way. In May, 1908, Mrs. James met the testator near his home on Park avenue. She had assisted Mrs. Diggs during sickness in her family for a number of years. The testator had known her father and was apparently fond of her. He spoke to her and asked her if she would not go into his house with him, saying that his son was out, and that he would like to have a little talk with her. She helped him up the steps of the house, and when they were seated in the parlor he said to her: At that point some one opened the front door of the house. The testator became very nervous and indicated to her to keep quiet. His son, Wake, the caveatee, came in and told his father to go to his room and lie down. After the testator left the parlor, the caveatee told Mrs. James not to talk to his father any more; that he was getting old and childish, and did not know what he was talking about. The will in controversy was executed about two weeks later. It was in the handwriting of the testator, and was "executed in duplicate." There were also two drafts of the will in his handwriting, and they were found in an envelope indorsed in the testator's handwriting as follows:
The execution of the will in question took place in the office of Alexander Yearly & Son, and the caveatee states that he accompanied his father to the door of Mr. Yearly's office and waited on the outside until he came out, when the testator told him that he had signed his will, and said to him: "And you will be satisfied."
The appellants say in their brief that all of the issues were abandoned at the trial except the issue of undue influence, and the record shows that that was the only issue submitted to the jury.
At the close of the testimony the plaintiffs, caveators,...
To continue reading
Request your trial