Townsend v. Boatmen's Natl. Bank, 34602.
| Decision Date | 21 April 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 34602.,34602. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Parties | ELMIRA TOWNSEND, ELLA F. BOLLES, CHARLOTTE L. WELLBORN, GEORGE SMITH, WILLIAM SMITH, LOIS SAUGIER, LUELLA REED, JOSEPH SAUGIER, RUBY PARSONS, AGNES PARSONS, LESTER PARSONS, RUTH S. PARSONS, PHILLIP A. PARSONS, I.N. WAGGONNER, LELIA WAGGONNER, WILLARD WAGGONNER, WANDA WAGGONNER, FREDERICKA WAGGONNER, MAGDALENE WAGGONNER PETERSON, DEFORREST E. CROW, FLORENCE DUNNINGTON, WENDOLA AUSMUS, DOROTHY M. CROW, GERALD M. CROW, WILFRED E. CROW, MAUD MAY CROW, DONALD W. CROW, ELIZABETH WAGGONNER, CLARA WAGGONNER CURREY, ISAAC RICHARD CAMPBELL, LOU LEAVITT, MARY HAZELTON, BLAKE HARRIS, JENNY MACY, JOSEPHINE BRENNAN, DORIS LAWRENCE, MAY LAWRENCE, BERT LAWRENCE, JOHN S. WHITE, MARTHA PETOSKE, CORA HANSEN, MARY LURANCY RICHARDS, FRED P. WHITE, GRACE P. MARTIN, FRED PARRIS, WILL PARRIS, GEORGE PARRIS, MARIE BRENNAN BLOMSTRAND, HENRY S. BOLLES and ADDISON WELLBORN, Appellants, v. BOATMEN'S NATIONAL BANK, Named and Appointed as Executor and Trustee Under the Alleged Last Will of HUGH W. THOMASSON, Deceased: ST. ANTHONY'S HOSPITAL, a Corporation; ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, a Corporation; THE LUTHERAN HOSPITAL, a Corporation; ST. LOUIS MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS, a Corporation; CHARLES A. LEE, Superintendent of Public Schools of the State of Missouri and President of the State Board of Education; GUY B. PARK, Governer of the State of Missouri; ROY McKITTRICK, Attorney General of the State of Missouri; DWIGHT H. BROWN, Secretary of State of and for the State of Missouri, <I>Ex-Officio</I> Members of the STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION and THE STATE OF MISSOURI. |
v.
BOATMEN'S NATIONAL BANK, Named and Appointed as Executor and Trustee Under the Alleged Last Will of HUGH W. THOMASSON, Deceased: ST. ANTHONY'S HOSPITAL, a Corporation; ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, a Corporation; THE LUTHERAN HOSPITAL, a Corporation; ST. LOUIS MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS, a Corporation; CHARLES A. LEE, Superintendent of Public Schools of the State of Missouri and President of the State Board of Education; GUY B. PARK, Governer of the State of Missouri; ROY McKITTRICK, Attorney General of the State of Missouri; DWIGHT H. BROWN, Secretary of State of and for the State of Missouri, Ex-Officio Members of the STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION and THE STATE OF MISSOURI.
Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis. — Hon. Frank Landwehr, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Taylor R. Young, Stephen A. Boggiano and Patrick H. Cullen for appellants; Cullen, Fauntleroy & Edwards, Cullen Coil, Walter L. Metcalfe, Clem F. Storckman and Jules Q. Strong of counsel.
(1) There was no substantial evidence offered by defendants to prove that Hugh W. Thomasson had sufficient mental capacity to make a will and the court erred in not directing the jury to return a verdict for plaintiffs. Rayl v. Golfinopulos, 233 S.W. 1071; Carroll v. Murphy, 231 S.W. 643; Teckenbrock v. McLaughlin, 209 Mo. 539; Bensberg v. Washington University, 251 Mo. 641; McFadin v. Catron, 138 Mo. 197; Archambault v. Blanchard, 198 Mo. 425. (2) Where there is a discrepancy between a will and the instructions upon which it is founded and such discrepancy is not made known to the testator, either by reading the will over to him or by otherwise explaining to him its contents and variations from the instructions, the instrument is not a valid will. Bradford v. Blossom, 207 Mo. 177; Cowan v. Shaver, 197 Mo. 213; 68 C.J., p. 984, sec. 751; 68 C.J., pp. 977-8, sec. 745; 30 American & Eng. Encyc. of Law (2 Ed.), p. 578; Waite v. Frisbie, 45 Minn. 361, 47 N.W. 1069, sec. app. 48 Minn. 420, 51 N.W. 217; Chandler v. Ferris, 1 Harr. 454; Gaither v. Gaither, 20 Ga. 709; Black v. Smith, 224 N.W. 915, 58 N.D. 109; Newhouse v. Godwin, 17 Barb. 236; Freeman v. Freeman, 19 Ont. 141; In re Alfaya's Will, 204 N.Y. Supp. 90; Tomkins v. Tomkins, 17 S.C. 92, 19 Am. Dec. 656; Ex parte McKie, 91 S.E. 978; Hughes v. Meredith, 24 Ga. 325; Garnett-Botfield v. Garnett-Botfield, L.R. 1901, P. (Eng.) 335, 71 L.J. Prob. N.S. 1, 85 L.T.N.S. 641; Fulton v. Andrews; 44 L.J. Prob. N.S. (Eng.) 17 L.R. 7 H.L. 448, 32 L.T.N.S. 209, 23 Week. Rep. 566. (3) Proof of knowledge of the contents, beyond the mere signing and attestation, is required in the case of the will of an aged testator, infirm and feeble in body and mind, which was written by one in whom he reposed confidence, and who is in the employ of a corporation that is appointed the executor and trustee herein, and to whom the disposal and management of all the property is left after the death of certain legatees. McKnight v. Wright, 12 Rich. L. 232; In re Jones Will, 192 N.Y. Supp. 163; In re Regan's Will, 206 App. Div. 403, 201 N.Y. Supp. 431; Barry v. Butlin, 2 Moore P.C.C.N.S. 480, 12 Eng. Rep. 1089; Mitchell v. Thomas, 6 Moore, P.C.C.N.S. 137, 13 Eng. Rep. 636; Baker v. Batt, 2 Moore, P.C.C. 317, 12 Eng. Rep. 1026; In re Gannon, 132 N.Y. Supp. 712; In Matter of Green, 67 Hun, 527, 532, 22 N.Y. Supp. 1112; McCommon v. McCommon, 151 Ill. 428, 38 N.E. 145; Keithly v. Stafford, 126 Ill. 507, 18 N.E. 704; Purdy v. Hall, 134 Ill. 298, 25 N.E. 645; In re Riley's Will, 249 N.Y. Supp. 152; Bloom v. Hartman, 115 Pa. St. 32, 8 Atl. 215, 2 Am. St. Rep. 525; In re Henry, 41 N.Y. Supp. 1096; Kelly v. Settegast, 68 Tex. 13, 2 S.W. 870; In re Barney's Will, 40 Atl. 1026; In re Lansing, 17 N.Y.S.R. 440, 2 N.Y. Supp. 117; In re De Castro, 66 N.Y. Supp. 239; Plater v. Groome, 3 Md. 134; Garrish v. Nason, 22 Me. 438; Rutland v. Gleaves, 1 Swan, 198; Perpetual Trustee Co. v. Williamson, 29 New South Wales St. Rep. 487, 16 British R.C. 1000; Hastilow v. Stobie, L.R. 1 Prob. & Div. 64. (4) The rule which places the burden of proof in case of illiteracy, low-grade mentality, etc., is not bottomed on fiduciary relations but obtains whether fiduciary relations exist or not. In re Jones Will, 192 N.Y. Supp. 163; In re Regan, 201 N.Y. Supp. 431; Maxwell v. Hill, 15 S.W. 253; In re Beck's Estate, 140 Pac. 341. (5) The standard of testamentary capacity contained in Instruction 3 for defendants is incomplete, authorized the jury to return a verdict without requiring them to find the existence of all the elements necessary to constitute soundness of mind, and is also in direct conflict with Plaintiffs' Instruction 1, which properly declares the law. Holton v. Cochran, 208 Mo. 422; Rose v. Rose, 249 S.W. 608; Sayre v. Trustees of Princeton University, 192 Mo. 120; Crossan v. Crossan, 169 Mo. 641; Lefever v. Stephenson, 193 S.W. 840; Adams v. Kendrick, 11 S.W. (2d) 16; Fraser v. Jennison, 3 N.W. 882, 42 Mich. 206; Bean v. Bean, 108 N.W. 369, 144 Mich. 599; Gaither v. Phillips, 75 So. 295, 199 Ala. 689; McDonald v. McDonald, 117 Am. St. Rep. 581; Ray v. Walker, 293 Mo. 464; Hartman v. Hartman, 314 Mo. 312; Schoenhoff v. Haering, 327 Mo. 850; Byrne v. Fulkerson, 254 Mo. 97; Crum v. Crum, 231 Mo. 626, 132 S.W. 1070; Rock v. Keller, 312 Mo. 458, 278 S.W. 759; Pulitzer v. Chapman, 85 S.W. (2d) 415; Ard v. Larkin, 278 S.W. 1068; Major v. Kidd, 261 Mo. 607; Andrew v. Linebaugh, 260 Mo. 623; Crawfordsville Trust Co. v. Ramsey, 98 N.E. 177, 178 Ind. 258; McReynolds v. Smith, 86 N.E. 1009, 172 Ind. 336; In re Buck's Will, 148 N.W. 117, 126 Minn. 275; Peninsular Trust Co. v. Barker, 74 N.W. 508, 116 Mich. 323; Spencer v. Terry's Estate, 86 N.W. 998, 127 Mich. 420; Terry v. Davenport, 83 N.E. 639, 170 Ind. 74; Brown v. Fidelity Trust Co., 94 Atl. 524, 126 Md. 175; In re De Laveaga's Estate, 133 Pac. 312, 165 Cal. 607; Taylor v. McClintock, 112 S.W. 411, 87 Ark. 243; In re Segur's Will, 44 Atl. 343, 71 Vt. 224; McLaughlin v. Sheehan, 145 N.E. 262, 250 Mass. 132; Lyon v. Townsend, 91 Atl. 708, 124 Mo. 163; Robinson v. Davenport, 201 S.W. 28, 179 Ky. 598; In re Heaton's Will, 120 N.E. 86, 224 N.Y. 22; Donovan v. St. Joseph's Home, 129 N.E. 4, 295 Ill. 25; Mason v. Bowen, 183 S.W. 976, 112 Ark. 407; Berst v. Moxom, 157 Mo. App. 343; Lyon v. Townsend, 91 Atl. 708, 124 Md. 163; In re Ferguson's Estate, 215 N.W. 54; Norton v. Clark, 97 N.E. 1083, 253 Ill. 557; Dowie v. Sutton, 81 N.E. 401, 227 Ill. 183, 118 Am. St. Rep. 266; Brown v. Fidelity Trust Co., 94 Atl. 524, 126 Md. 175; Down v. Comstock, 149 N.E. 510, 318 Ill. 445; McFarland v. Morrison, 86 S.E. 228, 144 Ga. 63; In re Craft's Estate, 94 Atl. 611, 85 N.J. Eq. 125; In re Dobal's Estate, 157 N.W. 171, 176 Iowa, 479; Robinson v. Davenport, 201 S.W. 28, 179 Ky. 698; State ex rel. Long v. Ellison, 272 Mo. 571, 199 S.W. 984; Macklin v. Fogel Construction Co., 31 S.W. (2d) 19. (6) Defendants' Instruction 2 is erroneous because it directs the jury not to consider whether the disposition made by the will is appropriate or inappropriate and in other respects minimizes and excludes evidence material on the issue of mental incapacity. Muller v. St. Louis Hospital Assn., 5 Mo. App. 390; Lane v. St. Denis Catholic Church of Benton, 274 S.W. 1102; Everly v. Everly, 297 Mo. 196; Hartman v. Hartman, 314 Mo. 306; Alward v. Briggs, 145 Mo. 613; Hughes v. Rader, 183 Mo. 710; Eastis v. Montgomery, 9 So. 311; Heflin v. Fullington, 37 S.W. (2d) 931; Erickson v. Lundgren, 37 S.W. (2d) 629; Hammer v. Edmonds, 327 Mo. 281; Schultz v. Schultz, 316 Mo. 728; Andrew v. Linebaugh, 260 Mo. 623; Wiegmann v. Wiegmann, 261 S.W. 758; Kaechelen v. Barringer, 19 S.W. (2d) 1033; Gay v. Gillilan, 92 Mo. 250; 13 Ann. Cas. 1045; 28 R.C.L., sec. 40, p. 90, sec. 103; 68 C.J., pp. 458-9, sec. 64; Mallory v. Newman, 223 Mo. 470; Bensberg v. Washington University, 251 Mo. 654; Chaney v. Baker, 304 Ill. 362, 136 N.E. 804; Huebel v. Baldwin, 119 Atl. 641, 45 R.I. 40; 28 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law (2 Ed.), p. 106; Hawkinson v. Oatway, 126 N.W. 683. (7) The total deprivation of reason is not necessary to destroy testamentary capacity. 1 Woerner, Am. Law of Admr. (3 Ed.), p. 54; Burney v. Torrey, 100 Ala. 157, 46 Am. St. Rep. 33. (8) To judge of the mental deficiency of a person, the entire conduct of the individual through life, both before and after the making of the alleged will, should be taken into account. Knapp v. Trust Co., 199 Mo. 660; Com. v. Bezek, 168 Pa. St. 603, 32 Atl. 109; 1 Page on Wills (2 Ed.), p. 1183, sec. 702; Dale's Appeal, 57 Conn. 127, 17 Atl. 757; Heflin v. Fullington, 37 S.W. (2d) 935; Byrne v. Fulkerson, 254 Mo. 123, 162 S.W. 179; Rule v. Maupin, 84 Mo. 590; Dunkeson et al. v. Williams, 242 S.W. 653; Von De Veld v. Judy, 143 Mo. 348; Hamner v. Edmonds, 36 S.W. (2d) 935. (9) Under the undisputed testimony of Edgar L. Taylor, it was his duty before he turned the paper over to Thomasson to advise him that he had changed it in the particulars shown by the testimony, and his failure to do so was wrongful or fraudulent. 26 C.J...
To continue reading
Request your trial