Wright v. Stevens
| Citation | 246 S.W.2d 817 |
| Decision Date | 10 March 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 42617,42617,2 |
| Parties | WRIGHT v. STEVENS et al |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Wm. R. McGuire, St. Louis, Wm. Barton, Robt. Hoelscher, Warrenton, for appellant.
Willima W. Van Matre, Jr., Mexico, Alvin H. Juergensmeyer, Warrenton, for respondents.
This is a suit to contest the last will of W. A. Stevens, deceased, on the grounds that he lacked mental capacity and had been unduly influenced. At the close of the evidence of the contestant, the trial court directed a verdict for proponents, declaring the instrument introduced in evidence to be the last will and testament of W. A. Stevens, deceased.
The testator was a widower and lived on his farm in Warren County, Missouri. At the time of his death he was approximately 75 years old. He had an adopted daughter, Mabel Stevens Wright, the contestant, and two brothers, E. L. Stevens and John Stevens, who survive him. On April 11, 1949, the testator was admitted to St. Joseph's Hospital at St. Charles and he died there on May 23,1949. On April 16, 1949 he executed the will in question. This will gave a 109 acre farm to the contestant. He gave his home place consisting of 80 acres to Ruth Wright Moreland, his grandaughter, She was the daughter of the contestant. He gave a 120 acre farm and the residue of his estate to his brother, E. L. Stevens.
Judge Theodore Bruere testified that on April 13, 1949 he was requested by E. L. Stevens to go to the hospital and see his brother; that on that date he went to see the testator who was in a double bedroom in which there was another man, but no one else was in the room; that testator told him that he had sent for him, that a Mr. Hall had suggested him and that he wanted him to draw his will. He further testified that he made notes on a piece of paper which was introduced in evidence; that the testator told him where the 3 farms were located in Warren County and who the grantors were in the deeds; and that he went to the courthouse of that county and easily located these farms from the information given him by testator. In other words, testator knew how much property he had and from whom he acquired it. After returning from Warren County Judge Bruere prepared the will as he was directed by testator. He further testified as follows: 'And he read the Will over and I read it to him and I think he made the statement--I am pretty sure he made the statement that that was what he wanted. * * * Q. At the conclusion, when you read it and you presume he read it, what if anything did he say? A. He said, 'This is what I want." He further testified that Mrs. Lessman and he witnessed the will. On cross-examination he testified that E. L. Stevens did not tell him anything about testator's property, only that he was in the hospital; that he was close to the testator and read the will in a loud voice so testator could hear as he was hard of hearing; and that E. L. Stevens paid him for his services several weeks later.
Carrie E. Lessman was a nurse at the hospital and was asked to witness the will. She closed the door as requested by deceased because he said he did not want anyone to hear what was going on; and Judge Bruere and she were the only ones in the room when the will was executed.
On cross-examination she testified that the testator was removed to another room; that he could not hear ordinary conversation, that the voice had to be raised when talking to him; that testator was nervous and rather shaky at the time he signed the will. She denied she assisted testator when he signed the will, denied she held his hand when the will was signed and denied the will was brought to testator the second time because he was too weak to sign it the first time.
Mrs. Mabel Stevens Wright, the contestant, testified that she had lived in St. Louis for 8 years prior to the trial in this case; that prior to that time she lived in Warren County; that she was testator's daughter and had lived with him until her marriage; that she and her husband farmed jointly with testator for about 19 years; that after she moved to St. Louis she visited her father regularly and the relation between her father and her was cordial and friendly; that she visited him the day he was brought to the hospital; that he had two pairs of glasses, one for reading and one he used to walk with; that he could not read script but only printing, and could not write except to sign his name; that her father was hard of hearing, that it was necessary to shout to make him hear; that he did not have his reading glasses at the hospital; and that she saw her father every day he was in the hospital. She further testified that the first day she visited him She testified that on the next day,
She testified that her father had stated that he did not believe in wills; that she saw E. L. Stevens about the hospital frequently the first two weeks and that one day he asked her to leave the room as he had some business to talk over with testator.
The following is a part of contestant's testimony:
'Q. (By Mr. McGuire) Mrs. Wright, when you saw your father there on the day and prior to the time that this Will was executed, could you carry on a coherent conversation with him? A. Not too good; no.
'Q. Would you explain for us his actions? A. Well, he was drowsy and he muttered to hisself--you couldn't understand everything he said.
'Q. And would he answer a direct question if you would ask him? A. No, sir.
'Q. And was he in a nervous and shaky condition? A. Yes, sir, he was.
'Mr. Van Matre: We object to the leading.
'The Court: Objection sustained.
'Q. (By Mr. McGuire) Just explain his condition? A. He was just awful rocky.
'Q. What do you mean by 'rocky'? A. I mean he was nervous. He was a sick man and I don't think he knew what he was doing all of the time. * * *
'Mr. Van Matre: To that we object, Your Honor.
'The Court: Objection overruled.
'Mr. Van Matre: We object to what she thinks.
'Mr. Van Matre: Now we object to that, Your Honor, and ask that the answer be stricken and the jury instructed to disregard that statement.
On cross-examination the contestant testified as follows:
* * *
'
'
Juanita Spencer testified that she was employed as a waitress in the St. Charles Hotel and that Mrs. Lessman came into the hotel restaurant and told Mrs. Lewis, contestant's daughter, she had to hold testator's hand when he signed the will and also that it was necessary to bring the will twice for the testator to sign as he was too weak and sick to sign it the first time it was brought to him. Mrs. Lewis corroborated this witness.
John Robert Wright testified he was the husband of contestant; that testator was very hard of hearing; that it was necessary to shout to make him hear; that he saw testator the evening the will was signed and testator was very nervous and weak; that he did not want to talk; that he signed papers for an operation; that testator told him not to let contestant sell any of the land, to make her keep it all together; that testator worried about his livestock and farm; that the witness found a renter for some of testator's land at his request after he was in the hospital; and that testator did not believe in wills because he and E. L. Stevens 'had broken a will of a relative.'
Several of testator's neighbors testified in behalf of the contestant but their testimony did not go to the issues before us. In fact, several of these witnesses stated that it was their opinion that testator was of sound mind as far as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michaelson v. Wolf
...testimony adduced by defendant, favorable to a plaintiff and all legitimate inferences therefrom favorable to plaintiff. Wright v. Stevens, Mo., 246 S.W.2d 817, 821; Hahn v. Brueseke, 348 Mo. 708, 155 S.W.2d 98, 100[1, 2]; Walter v. Alt, 348 Mo. 53, 152 S.W.2d 135, 141[1-8]. A plaintiff's p......
-
Flynn v. Union Nat. Bank of Springfield, 8220
...Mo. 53, 152 S.W.2d 135; Fendler v. Roy, 331 Mo. 1083, 58 S.W.2d 459; Schoenhoff v. Haering, supra; Smith v. Fitzjohn, supra.6 Wright v. Stevens, Mo., 246 S.W.2d 817; In re Nelson's Estate, Mo.App., 185 S.W.2d 890; Lee v. Ullery, 346 Mo. 236, 140 S.W.2d 5; see Weakley v. Weakley, 355 Mo. 882......
-
Switzer v. Switzer
...rest upon a mere opportunity to influence or upon a mere suspicion (Buckner v. Tuggle, supra; Baker v. Spears, supra; Wright v. Stevens, Mo., 246 S.W.2d 817[1-5]). We take contestant's favorable evidence as true, disregard proponent's evidence unless it aids contestant, and give contestant,......
-
Sebree v. Rosen
...but this does not compel a finding of fraud or undue influence. Shapter v. Boyd, 327 Mo. 397, 37 S.W.2d 542, 550[7, 8]; Wright v. Stevens, Mo., 246 S.W.2d 817, 821 [4, 5]; McCoy v. McCoy, 360 Mo. 199, 227 S.W.2d 698, 707[20-23]. The findings of the chancellor establish that he did not belie......