Wm. Farrell's Adm'r v. James Brennan's Adm'x

• Citation: 32 Mo. 328
• Parties: WM. FARRELL'S ADMINISTRATOR, Appellant, v. JAMES BRENNAN'S ADMINISTRATRIX, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 31 March 1862
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

32 Mo. 328

WM. FARRELL'S ADMINISTRATOR, Appellant,

v.JAMES BRENNAN'S ADMINISTRATRIX, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1862.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

A. J. P. Garesché, for appellant.

I. The court should have permitted the witnesses to be asked their opinion as to the sanity of the testator, where they testified to facts of their own observation, or from long acquaintance with the testator. (1 Greenl. on Ev., p. 573, note 5 to § 440, 2d ed.)

The opinion of witnesses that testator, from defect of understanding, was incompetent to make a will, having been excluded by the court at nisi prius, held, by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, “that there was no plausible reason to sustain the objection. How, otherwise, could the alleged imbecility of mind be proved than by the evidence of those who grew up with him, who marked his conduct in infancy, in the prime of life, and in his decline? The opinion of the witness, without stating the ground of such opinion, ought not to be received. But where they state facts indicative of a want of common intellect, their opinion is always received. The weight it ought to have will depend upon the solidity of the reasons assigned for the opinion, and the intelligence of the witness.” For this exclusion the cause was reversed. (Rambler v. Tryon, 7 Serg. & Rawle, 92; Benton v. Scott, 3 Rand. 403-405; Kenworthy v. Williams, 5 Ind. 379; Kinne v. Kinne, 9 Conn. 102; Potts v. House, 6 Geo. 336-344; Dicken v. Johnson, 7 Geo. 486; Brook et al. v. Townshend, 7 Gill. 27; reaffirmed in Stewart v. Reddil, 3 Md. 78; Roberts v. Trawick, 13 Ala. 85.)

In New York the doctrine is laid down as asked by the appellants. In Culver v. Haslam, 7 Barb. S. C. Rep., p. 321. This case was by a majority of the court (Judge Denio dissenting) reversed, and the opinion of witnesses excluded. (See DeWitt v. Barley, 9 N. Y., 5 Sel., 374.) Subsequently the cause of DeWitt v. Barley went again to the Court of Appeals, and the question finally decided by the adoption of the dissenting opinion of Judge Denio as given upon the first appeal. (DeWitt v. Barley, 17 N. Y., 3 Smith, 340; Flores v. Flores, 24 Ala. 247; McDaniels v. Crosby, 19 Ark. 546; 12 Ohio, Stanton's Rep., 492, Clark v. The State, and the English cases therein cited; Judge Gaston's opinion in Clary v. Clary, 2 Iredell, 84, and for which cause the case was reversed.)

In Missouri the question may be said to be decided. (Baldwin v. The State, 12 Mo. 237.) For though this be a criminal case, it is founded upon the will case of Clary v. Clary, above cited.

II. The opening or closing of the evidence in a case does not belong either to the plaintiff or defendant as such, but to the party on whom rests the affirmative of the issues. (Goss v. Turner, 21 Vt. 437.) Greenl. Ev., § 74, p. 99, ed. 1854: “Where by the pleadings, the burden of proof of any matter in issue is thrown upon the plaintiff, he must in the first instance introduce all the evidence upon which he relies to establish his claim. He cannot, as said by Lord Ellenborough, go into half of his case and reserve the remainder.” (Hathaway v. Hemmingway, 20 Conn. 195, and particularly the case therein cited of Rex v. Beasley, 4 Carrington & Payne, 220.)

The statute (sec. 300, R. C. 1855, p. 1571) requiring that the petition to contest a will should be by one interested, the allegation by plaintiffs of their heirship of testator, denied by defendants, was a material allegation, and of itself entitled them to open and close the case.

If the record contains several issues, and the plaintiff holds the affirmative in any of them, he is entitled to begin. (Greenl., ed. 1854, p. 100, § 74; Jackson et al. v. Pittsford, 8 Blackford, 195.)

a. The test to determine the order of beginning at a trial is to consider “which party would be entitled to the verdict, supposing no evidence given on either side, as the burden of proof must be on the adversary.” (Leete v. Gresham Ins. Co., 7 Eng. Law and Equity, 578; 1 Foster, N. H. 181; Belknap v. Wendall, 6 Pick. 226; Ayer v. Austin, 37 N. H. 226; Chesley v. Chesley, Wells v. Pike, and Colt v. Beaumont, decided at this term.) b. That sanity of testator is presumed, and that the burden of proof of imbecility lays upon the plaintiff. (2 Starkie, 929; 2 Greenl. 672, § 689, ed. 1854; Dayton on Surrogate, 51; Wheeler v. Anderson, 3 Haggard's Eq. R. 598; Sloan v. Maxwell, 2 Green's Chy. R. 581; Jackson v. Vanderson, 5 John. 158; Ford v. Ford, 17 Humphrey's Tenn. 99; Grabill v. Barr, 5 Penn. 441; Landis v. Landis, 1 Grant Cases, 250; Pettes v. Bingham, 10 N. H. 515; McDaniels v. Crosby et al., 19 Ark. 545; Dend Trumbull et al. v. Gibbons, 2 Zabriskie, 155; Saxon et al. v. Whitaker, 30 Ala. 238; Stevens v. Vancleve, 4 Wash. Cir. Ct. R. 269; Brown and wife v. Sovies, 24 Barb. Sup. Ct. R. 583; Copeland v. Copeland, 32 Ala. 512.)

Where the factum of the will is admitted, the plaintiffs have the opening and close of the case.

Adverse 1 Greenl., ed. 1854, 104, § 77; the decisions referred to in this text are taken from Maine, Massachusetts or Connecticut reports. But in these states the courts, when there is a question of probate, do not presume the sanity of the testator, but require it (like any other of the four statutory conditions for the validity of a will) to be proven. (2 Gray's Mass. Rep., Crownenshield v. Crownenshield, 524; Gernets v. Nason, 22 Me. 441; Cilley v. Cilley, 34 Me. 163; Knox's Appeal, 26 Conn. 22; Hylton v. Hylton, 1 Grat. 165; Rogers et al. v. Thomas, 1 B. Monroe, 390; Hawkins et al. v. Grimes, 13 B. Monroe, 270.)

c. This right of closing is not important where the presiding judge cautiously sums up the evidence. But the privilege is more important where the court is a mere silent spectator of forms, without the right of charging the jury. (6 Pickering, Ayers v. Austin, 226, quoted as authoritative in Searcy v. Dearborn, 19 N. H. 335; Carico v. Kirby, 3 Cranch, Ct. Ct., 594.)

In Cravens v. Falconer, 28 Mo., the issue was the signature of the will, and of course executor or proponents of will should open and close. Wells v. Pike, and Colt v. Beaumont, decided this term, do not conflict.R. M. Field, for respondents.

This was a proceeding in St. Louis Circuit Court, under the statute of wills, instituted by the heir of Michael Farrell to contest the probate of the will of the latter, which had been allowed in common form in the Probate Court.

In the Circuit Court the statutory issue was tried before a jury. On the trial two exceptions were saved by the appellant:

1. That the respondents representing the party propounding the will were allowed by the court the opening and closing of the testimony and argument.

2. That the respondents, after adducing evidence in the opening to prove the formal execution of the will, were allowed in reply, after the appellant's testimony was given, to put in testimony of the capacity of the testator.

For the respondent it is insisted, that the course adopted by the court below was strictly conformable to the established rules of practice. (Cravens v. Falconer, 28 Mo. 19.)

That the matters of exception go only to the form of procedure, which is in the discretion of the trial court; and where no injustice appears to have been suffered by the party, they furnish no ground for reversal in this court.

BAY, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff filed his petition in the St. Louis Circuit Court, under our statute of wills, to contest the validity of an instrument of writing purporting to be the last will of Michael Farrell, deceased. The petition alleges that at the time of the execution of the said supposed last will and testament the said Michael Farrell was not of sound...