133 N.Y.S. 409 | N.Y. Sur. Ct. | 1912
The witnesses to the will were Lewis E. Raymond, of Eranlclin, who drew the will, and who is the attorney for the proponent herein, and Melissa Munson, a friend and neighbor of Eranklin.
Mr. Raymond testified that he resided at Franklin; knew testatrix all his life; did more or less professional business for her; had the first conversation with reference to the execution of the contract and will the morning of the execution of the will at her home. She had sent for him to come. When he went in, she said, “Hello, Lou.” He asked her what she wanted to see him for, and she replied she had been thinking the matter over of making arrangements with Mr. and Mrs. George E. Armstrong to come there and take care of her. She said she had been figuring up her property, and said she had about $2,500. He asked her what it consisted of, and she replied she had a mortgage on the Virgil Ogden property amounting to $1,400 or $1,500, and a mortgage on the Southard farm, town of Sidney, for $1,000, and about $45 in cash besides her household goods and effects. She said it was costing her about $50 a month to be taken care of. She was hiring Lewis Bennett to stay nights and a woman daytimes to do her housework, and, if she lived a good many .years, her money would be all used up. She said she had offered to give George Armstrong and his wife her property if they would come and take care of her as long as she lived, and bury her and put up a headstone or markers at her grave and her husband’s. She said they were nearest to her of any one, and asked Raymond what he thought about it. He replied it was a lottery how long she would live; that, if she lived a number of years, it would be a good investment for her to do it. It insured her good care. Raymond says he asked her if she had talked with them about' it, and she replied she had sent word by Charles Bourne that she wanted them to come and take care of her, and she would give them her property. She said there were certain keepsakes she wanted some of her friends to have. She wanted Mrs. Munson to have all-her wearing apparel. She wanted Mrs. Munson also to have some rugs that she had formerly given the testatrix. An old-fashioned pair of blankets she wanted Libbie Briggs, a friend who had lived near her, to have. A large gilt mirror she wanted Sarah Chamberlain, a former neighbor- who had been kind to her, to have. These things she said she wanted to give away as keepsakes to her friends; but the remainder of her property she was willing to give Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong if they were willing to come and take care of her, and bind themselves to do it, and she wanted the property fixed some way so they would be certain to have it when she was gone.
Melissa Munson, the other subscribing witness, testified she lived at Franklin, was 70 years of age, knew the testatrix from childhood, was with her a few days about the time of the execution of the will because her girl was absent. She was shown the will, and asked if her name appeared upon it. She replied she did not remember making it, but her name was there. She was asked if she saw Sarah J. Bennett sign her name to it; and she replied:
“I saw her write on the paper, but did not know what she wrote; saw her sign her name only this once, signed her name, saw Raymond write, did not know what he was writing.”
A number of witnesses were sworn in behalf of the proponents, tending to show that the testatrix at or about the time of executing the contract and will was of sound mind and memory and competent to make a will.
It is claimed by the contestant that the testatrix at the time of executing the contract and will was not of sound and disposing mind and memory, and was not competent to make a valid testamentary disposition of her property, neither was she competent to make the Armstrong contract; that both were the result of undúe influence; that in April, 1908, she suffered a shock of cerebral apoplexy; that'
There was a large number of witnesses sworn in behalf of the con- . testant, and some evidence given tending to establish many of the above recited facts.
If the evidence of the witness- Raymond is true, and the testatrix on the day of the execution of the will gave the directions for the business transacted that day and explained the reason therefor describing the amount and character of her property as testified to by him, she was in my opinion, applying the rule laid down in Matter of Iredal, 53 App. Div. 45, 65 N. Y. Supp. 533, competent to make a will, although the case is not free from doubt, as the evidence as to her physical condition about the time of executing the will is conflicting ; still, basing my conclusions upon the evidence of the witness Raymond as to what was said and done at the time of the execution of the will, I am of the opinion she comprehended the condition of her property, her relation to those who were the objects of her bounty, the nature and consequences of her act, and that it was her free act, and for the foregoing reasons admit the will to probate as a valid testamentary disposition of her property.
Costs to be adjusted and decree settled upon notice.