5 Johns. 144 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1809
delivered the opinion of the court. The determination of this motion involves the consideration of the folloAving questions of law, \riz.
1. Is there sufficient evidence to establish the formal execution of the will of Johannes Van Dusen P
2. Was improper testimony admitted, or proper testimony excluded ?
3. Was Elizabeth Van Dusen a competent witness ?
4. Was the jury misdirected, by being instructed, that the sanity of the testator (Johannes ‘ Van Du-sen) was, in the first instance, to be presumed, and that it therefore was incumbent on the defendant, in order to avoid his will, to prove he was not sane ?
1. All the attesting witnesses to the will being dead, ' the plaintiff proved the hand-ivriting of two of them ; and some slight evidence'was given to prove the letters, S. W. to have been made by Samuel Wheeler, the third Avitness ; but to the latter, I do not now, nor did I at the time, attach any importance. In addition to this, the plaintiff gave very strong evidence of continued possession of the testator’s Kinderhook estate, by the devisees and those claiming under them, in conformity to the will; that estate, at the time of his decease, and for a long time afterwards, being the most valuable part of th.e real property, and the only portion of it not in dis
2. The evidence improperly admitted is said to be, 1. That of Daniel Staats, relative to the declarations of
It must be distinctly understood that this testimony was offered to establish the formal execution of the will, by showing that possession had gone according to it, and for no other purpose; and also, that at the time it was admitted, the sanity of the testator had not become a subject of inquiry. The mill constituted but a small part of the estate of Johannes Van Dusen, if it ever did belong to him. The counsel for the defendant contend, that it never did belong to him; and they proved on the trial, that Robert Van Dusen purchased the ground upon which the mill was erected, subsequent to his father’s decease. It appears, however, that the mill was built at the joint expense of the three brothers, John, Robert and Lawrence ; that they occupied it as tenants in common ; that it was placed opposite to where a mill of Johannes Van Dusen, the father, had previously stood, on a different side of the Kinderhook creek, and the dam probably extended over the land formerly of Johannes. If the fact be, as the counsel for the defendant aver, that the mill was not parcel of the real estate of Johannes Van Dusen, then the testimony in question could not possibly have had any influence upon the decision of the cause, and the objection would, for that reason, fall to the ground. I admitted the evidence, however, in a stage of the trial when the mill appeared to have been parcel of the estate of which Johannes Van Dusen died seised. Was it then proper ? It is conceded that the fact of con»
The testimony which it is contended was illegally excluded, is that relating to a purchase made by Staats, of the share of John Van Dusen, of the old mansion-house oí Johannes Van Dusen. The defendant offered to prove, that Staats relinquished the purchase, because some of Robert Van DuserCs children, denied the validity of John's title, under the will. Admitting all this to have been proved, it i%, difficult even to imagine that it could have had any effect upon the decision of the cause. The testimony, I continue to think, was properly excluded, on the ground of its utter inconclusiveness and immateriality.
3. That Elizabeth Van Dusen, was a competent witness, has been decided in the case of Jackson, ex dem. Griswold, v. Bard. (4 Johns. Rep. 230.) She had no other interest in the cause than what grew out of her right of dower in the premises. The verdict in this cause could not be given in evidence, in a suit to be brought by her for the recovery of her dower. (Peake's Evidence, 27.)
4. As to the alleged misdirection of the jury. In all cases where the act of a party is sought to be avoided on the ground of his mental imbecility, the proof of the fact lies upon him who alleges it, and until the contrary appears, sanity is to be presumed. This rule of law is recognised by all the elementary writers on the subject;
This rule, undoubtedly, has its qualifications ; one of which is, that after a general derangement has been shown, it is then incumbent on the other side to show that the party who did the act, was sane at the very time when it was performed. The defendant does not complain that the law was not so stated ; nor is there any just ground for such complaint, because, in fact, it was so laid down to the jury. But independently of authority, the law ought to be so. Almost all mankind are possessed of at least a sufficient portion of reason to be able to manage the ordinary concerns of life. To say, therefore, that sanity is not to be presumed, until the contra* ry is proved, is to say that insanity or fatuity is the natural state of the human mind.
There is another ground upon which the motion for a new trial, is attempted to be supported, viz. that the verdict is against the weight of evidence, both in regard to the sanity of Johannes Van Dusen, when he executed his will, and the adverse possession relied upon by the defendant. The law on the first point, as has been already shown, was correctly stated to the jury, and on the other it has not been called in question. Both were questions of fact, and as such were submitted to the decision of the jury, who have decided in favour of the plaintiff. One of my brethren, I understand, would have been as well, and another better satisfied, if on the question of sanity, the verdict had been the other way ; but we all concur in the opinion, after a full consideration of the evidence, that it is not expedient to grant a new trial on this
I have thus, as briefly as the nature of the case will admit, considered the various questions arising upon this case, and the result is, that the motion for a new trial must be denied. .
Rule refused.