Reference

Full Case Name

Joshua Hoopes' Estate. Appeal of Edith Thompson

Cited By

11 cases

Status

Published

Syllabus

Will — Undue influence — Lunacy. Testator, who had been declared a lunatic, claimed to be sane, and employed an attorney at law to procure an order superseding lunacy proceedings. Pending the litigation, the attorney, a comparative stranger to the testator, without consultation with or having present any of testator’s friends or relatives, privately prepared and had executed by testator two wills, in both of which the attorney was named as one of the legatees and sole executor, and both of which were witnessed by him. When testator stated to the attorney as a reason for making him a legatee that he wished' to provide compensation for his contemplated services in the lunacy proceedings, the attorney did not inform the testator that, if successful, his property, ample wherewith to remunerate the attorney, would be restored to him, and if unsuccessful, that a fee would be allowed by the court out of testator’s estate. He also neglected to inform testator that the amount of the legacy was out of all proportion to the services he would be called upon to render. Held, that the legal presumption of undue influence arising from the condition of the testator and the confidential relations of the parties must be removed by evidence on the part of those asserting the validity of the will. Will — Testamentary capacity — Lunacy—Lucid interval. When a person is shown to have executed an alleged will after he had been legally declared a lunatic, the burden of proof is upon the proponents of the will, who must show that it was executed in a lucid interval, aud when the testator had understanding and capacity to execute the will. In a contest over the validity of a will, the testimony showed that the testator was over eighty years of age when the alleged will was executed; that his sister, several of his brothel’s and an aunt were insane, and that he himself had been found a lunatic five years before he executed the paper in question; that his habits were filthy and he was incapable of taking proper care of his person; that he did not know who were his relatives or next of kin; that he had no clear conception of his property or of its value; that he was under the delusion that his farm contained a large-deposit of coal of great value; that he was easily influenced, especially by any one who favored the restoration of his property to his control, and that he believed his committee, who was not his next of kin, and against whom he at times exhibited feelings of hostility would secure a portion of his estate unless he made a will. Held, that the evidence was insufficient to justify the court in allowing an issue devisavit vel non.