Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Rogow, Dreimuller v. (N. J. Sup.).

144 South Shore R. Co., Pittsburgh & L. E, R.

[blocks in formation]

State v. Agrest (N. J.).

419

State v. Barino (Del. O. & T.).

833

[blocks in formation]

189 Trenton & Mercer County Traction

601
ration v. Ewing Tp. (N. J.)..
410 Trottier v. Foley (R. I.)...
791 Tucker v. Lowe (N. H.).
47 Tudor v. Tudor's Estate (Vt.).

475 Tudor's Estate, Tudor v. (Vt.).

266

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Walton Mfg. Co., Gallagher v. (Pa.).
78 Warner v. Logue Realty Co. (Del. Orph.) 449
Washington Trust Co. v. Thomas (R. I.).. 203
50 Washington & R. R. Co. v. Burroughs (Md.) 157
Waterhouse v. Tilenius (Me.)..

411 Watkins v. Benscoter (Pa.).
419 Waxman, State v. (N. J. Sup.).
238 Wegefarth v. Wiessner (Md.).
Weinbeck v. Dalims (Md.)..
Weisenberger v. Huebner (Pa.).
Wellman v. Mead (Vt.).....

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

THE

ATLANTIC REPORTER

VOLUME 107

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

4. APPEAL AND ERROR 874(5) — DISPOSITION - SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE NEW TRIAL APPELLEE'S BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. On appeal from court's ruling setting aside verdict for contestants in a will contest, new trial will be granted by Supreme Court of Errors on appellee's bill of exceptions under Gen. St. 1918, § 5841, though evidence was sufficient to have justified verdict, where there was material error specified in appellee's bill of exceptions.

Appeal from Superior Court, New London County; Donald T. Warner, Judge.

Will contest by Charles A. Gager and others against Earl Mathewson, executor. On appeal from probate. There was a verdict for contestants in the superior court. Verdict set aside on motion, and contestants appeal, and executor files bill of exceptions. Error, and new trial granted on executor's bill of exceptions.

Nathan Johnson, of the town of Bozrah, died, aged 66, April 17, 1917, leaving a will

executed January 8, 1917, and a codicil executed April 12, 1917. His nearest relatives were two first cousins older than himself. For two years before his death he had lived in the house of John S. Sullivan and Lucy Sullivan, his wife. Lucy Sullivan had lived with the testator's mother for eight or nine years, and the testator had always been on very friendly terms with her. During the last two years of his life she took care of him. His estate inventoried over $216,000, and excluding three smaller gifts, which are not in dispute, was distributed by the will as follows: To Mary L. Spencer, of Rochester, N. Y., a second cousin of the deceased, $50,000; to Mrs. Lucy Sullivan, $50,000; and the remainder of the estate to G. W. Comstock and J. J. Donahue as trustees, the income to be applied to the benefit of the Backus Hospital, of Norwich. The case was tried to the jury on the issues of lack of testamentary capacity and of undue influence on the part of the Sullivans and of Messrs. Comstock and Donahue. The jury returned a general verdict, finding that the paper in question was not the will of the testator. On motion the verdict for the contestants was set aside. From the decision of the court setting aside the verdict the contestants appealed, and the appellee has filed a bill of exceptions for alleged errors in the charge of the court.

William H. Shields and Arthur M. Brown, both of Norwich, for appellants.

Christopher L. Avery, of New London, and Lee R. Robbins, of Norwich, for appellee.

[blocks in formation]

lows: The testator was in the habit of taking narcotics to excess. The disease of which he died was a progressive disease, which in its normal development would affect his mind. On many separate occasions he conducted himself irrationally, sometimes in such a way as to suggest that he was un

For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes 107 A.-1

rest upon her to disprove such influence by a
But it is for
fair preponderance of evidence.
you to determine, gentlemen.

"If you believe from the evidence adduced betial relationship, then it would be her duty to fore you that she did occupy any such confidenrebut by a fair preponderance of testimony that she did not improperly or unduly use that relationship for her own benefit."

The facts outlined in this portion of the charge are wholly inadequate to support any claim that such a relationship existed between Lucy Sullivan and the testator as would put her in that limited class of beneficiaries who are required to disprove undue influence.

der the influence of narcotics, and sometimes in ways not easily explainable on that theory. He appeared at times to be ignorant of the fact that he possessed a large estate. In February, 1917, he resigned as administrator of his brother's estate, of which he was the sole heir at law, and requested that another administrator be appointed in his place, although nothing remained for him to do except to transfer to himself a savings bank deposit of $10,000 and to render a final account. He attempted to commit suicide. Mary L. Spencer, to whom he left $50,000, died some weeks before the will was made, and nearly five months before the codicil. Six witnesses testified that from their knowledge and observation they regarded him as of unsound mind. Two physicians of standing gave "This exception should not be extended betheir opinion to the same effect. And one yond the limitations placed upon it in its recof the witnesses to a will executed on Janu-ognition. Its justification is to be found in the ary 6, 1917, two days before the execution of the will in question, told Mr. Comstock, within an hour after its execution, that he did not think, from the testator's appearance, that he was capable of making a will. If the jury believed all this testimony, and believed that it outweighed the testimony of the proponent's witnesses and experts, they might reasonably have reached the verdict which they rendered.

[2] But this is not the only question before us. The statute (section 5841, G. S.) regulating appeals from the decision of a trial court setting aside a verdict provides that the appellee may file his bill of exceptions, that this court shall consider the questions arising thereon, and that, if material error appears, this court "shall not order judgment to be entered on the verdict, but in lieu thereof shall order a new trial of the cause." We find but one material error pointed out in the bill of exceptions, and that relates to the following portion of the charge:

"The appellants further claim, and some evidence has been offered to establish, that a confidential relationship existed between Lucy Sullivan and the decedent, arising from the fact that she was for a long time a member of his mother's household and treated by him as a member of the family and as a sister, from his frequent visits to her house and frequent tarries there, and finally going there to make his home, in March, 1915, and remaining there until his death in April, 1917, and from his intrusting her on numerous occasions with his checks, aggregating hundreds of dollars, to deposit in one of the banks for him, and also that she made various purchases, including clothing, for him. And the appellants claim, therefore, that she did occupy a position of peculiar confidence and intimacy with Dr. Johnson, such as would give her a controlling influence over him and his affairs, and would put her in the same category or class as an attorney or guardian deriving a benefit from his will, which would raise some presumption that she exercised her

In Lockwood v. Lockwood, 80 Conn. 513, 522, 69 Atl. 8, 11, we said:

rule of policy which seeks to prevent the unseemly sight of a stranger occupying such a delicate fiduciary relation, advising a testator to exclude his own family from participation in his estate for the benefit of the adviser."

And in Kirby's Appeal, 91 Conn. 40, 43, 98 Atl. 349, 350, it is said:

"The limitations referred to [in Lockwood v. Lockwood] are such relations existing between the testatrix and the legatee as denote special confidence and controlling influence, such as are shown where the legatee is the lawyer who draws the will and advises as to its provisions, or a guardian who has charge of the person and estate of the testatrix, and in like cases of confidence and trust."

Religious advisers, guardians, attorneys, and physicians are, by virtue of their profession or occupation, advisers in their respective fields, and when selected for that purpose by the testator they are assumed to have special opportunities for influencing the disposition of his property by will. They also occupy a fiduciary relation to the testator, which requires them to use their influence in his service and not in their own. The class is distinct in its type, and if others than those enumerated are brought into it, it will be because they occupy, in the language of Lockwood v. Lockwood, "a nearly analogous position of trust."

[3] We think the charge of the court disregarded the limited application of this exception to the general rule of procedure, and left the jury to infer that the mere fact of a relation of peculiar confidence and intimacy, although purely personal, would put upon Lucy Sullivan the burden of disproving undue influence, if the jury thought she possessed a controlling influence, over the testator. That is not the law. Other things being equal, it is of course true in the case of any person that his opportunities to influence a testator's disposition of his proper

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »