63 Neb. 585 | Neb. | 1902
The first of the above entitled causes is a contest of the will of William 0. Bissell, deceased, and the second is an equitable action brought to set aside a deed made by said Bissell to one Phillips, and executed by him at the same time he made the will in controversy. The questions in each case relate to the mental capacity of the grantor and testator at the time of the execution of said instruments, and the legal right of Bissell to devote his property to the object which it is claimed was intended. Both the deed and will were executed by Bissell on January 28, 1898, and he died on the 11th day of April following. He was eighty-seven years of age at the time of his death; a man of fine education, being a graduate of Yale College. He had been a teacher for some years, and at the time of his death had accumulated property estimated to be worth $18,000,' The greater part in Aralue of this property com
Q. In a general way, you are opposed to all organizations; but isn’t it a fact that it is the avowed purpose of your corporation to fight secret societies?
A. That is one of its avowed purposes.
Q. Was there any other avowed specific purpose mentioned in your articles of incorporation?
A. It mentions whatever hinders the kingdom of Christ.
Q. Well, that is a little indefinite. Their specific object is to fight secret societies?
A. They are to oppose secret societies, the Masons in particular.
Q. That is stated in your articles of incorporation?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What other evils in society are you to fight, named in that article of incorporation?
A. I don’t recollect that there is any specific evil, named besides that.
Again, in his testimony, Mr. Phillips, in reply to a question as to how the missionaries of the society discharged their duties said: “They preach as other ministers preach, more or less, and they hold revivals.” On being asked whether the corporation was under the supervision of any particular church, he answered: “No, sir; it is interdenominational ; understand, it is not a' denominational institution. There are seventeen different religions represented in its organization. They often preach as other ministers do, — occupy the pulpit and preach what are called sermons. They sometimes hold revivals, as ordinarily meant by that term, without any special reference to the specific lodge question, and they often lecture on temperance. Of course, wherever the way opens, they try to
Q. You are out to convince p'eople of that?
A. Yes, sir, that is the object.
We believe that the foregoing fairly represents, so far as the record discloses, the object and purpose of the National Christian Association, but, as before stated, this is not gathered from the articles of the association themselves, but from the testimony of Mr. Phillips, as it was drawn out by the contestants of the will. The association also publishes a paper or periodical called the Cynosure, and Mr. Bissell had been a subscriber to this publication for many years, and for twenty-five years or more had bitterly opposed all' secret societies, and especially the Masonic society; and one of the contestants testified that it was his opinion, manifested by his words, that the Masonic order was the oldest, most powerful and wickedest of the secret fraternities; that it was antagonistic to our civil government, and that the higher degrees of Masonry would uphold any of its members in any crime, not excepting murder and treason. Another witness testified that he gave as his reason for opposing secret societies that they would commit crimes, and that no Christian man could be a member of a lodge. He could not be a Christian if he was a member of any of these secret orders. In 1892, Bis-sell wrote a will, which he denominated “My first last will and testament,” providing: First — For the payment of all debts and funeral expenses, and a monument not to cost exceeding $100. Second — His wife to have the income - from his estate during her natural life, but subject to an annual payment of $25 to be made to his sister, Melicent Herrick. Third — After the death of his wife, the said Melicent Herrick was to be paid $100 per annum for the
The first will, together with other evidence in the case, manifested a disposition of long standing on the part of Mr. Bissell to devote his property, or the greater part thereof, to the work of the National Christian Association. Some time prior to the making of the Avill a rumor came to the ears of Mr. and Mrs. Bissell that some party held, or claimed to hold, a large claim, which Avould be presented as a demand against his estate after his death; and we learn from the testimony of Mrs. Bissell that in talking over the rumor with her husband, he was greatly disturbed Avith the thought that a contest might arise over his will, and she advised him to send, for Mr. Phillips, and to make a disposition of his property during his lifetime. Mr. Phillips was accordingly sent for, and arrived in Humboldt, as Ave infer from the testimony, January 27. He
It is insisted, however, that the decedent was a monomaniac in his opposition to secret societies, and that the ( making of this will and deed Avas the direct result of a /
It is further argued that the devise was illegal, and the ground of the argument is this: By section 165, chapter 16, Compiled Statutes, subordinate lodges of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons, all lodges organized as subordinate lodges of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, and Farmers’ Alliance, Knights of Labor, the grand lodge Knights of Pythias, and other secret societies named, are made bodies corporate. It is said that these societies are recognized by the laws of this state as legal, moral and worthy societies, and that any disposition of property made for the purpose of using the proceeds to oppose these organizations is illegal and void. With this contention we can not agree. This is a country of free speech and free opinions. One who does not believe in secret societies, who thinks that their tendency is bad, has
Many churches oppose secret societies. Their ministers preach their opposition from the pulpit, and yet no one has advocated that they be suppressed for denouncing legal and legitimate organizations, and no one has yet sought to avoid a subscription to a church upon the ground that it is advocating principles at war with the legally established institutions of the state.
It might be further stated that Bissell had no children, and no nearer blood relative than the nephew and nieces who are the contestants in this case. While they were on friendly terms, no great degree of intimacy appears to have existed between them. Mrs. Bissell testified that none of them had visited him during the twenty-five or tAventy-six years of his residence in Humboldt, and that, while there were occasional letters passed, no intimate relations existed between them. We speak of this to show that aside from his wife, there was no near relatives to whom his property could be left, and to observe that it is not a case
Objections were taken to some of the instructions given by the court, and the refusal of the court to give others requested by the contestants. We have before remarked that, in our opinion, there was no evidence tending in any-reasonable degree to show that the testator was not perfectly competent to make a will or to otherwise dispose of his property. Indeed, we think tLat the court would have been fully warranted in taking the case from the jury and directing a verdict. In this view of the case, it would be a useless waste of time to review the instructions given or refused. The verdict was the only one which could have been sustained under the evidence, and whether the instructions in all cases announced a correct rule of law for the guidance of the j ury becomes immaterial. If error inhered in the instructions given, or if the court improperly refused instructions announcing correct rules for the determination of the case by the jury, it was error without prejudice, and could not affect the result.
The court found that the deed made by Bissell to Phillips was in trust for certain purposes fully set out in the decree, but not necessary to be repeated in this opinion. Objection is made to this finding as entirely outside the issues made by the pleadings, and not responding to any question in controversy between the parties. At first impression we were inclined to believe that the court had committed serious error in extending its decree beyond the controversy made by the immediate parties to the action, and declaring a trust in the property conveyed in favor of Mrs. Bissell and others. On more mature consideration we have concluded that the appellants have no cause of complaint. By the decree of the court the appellants were found to have no right or interest in the property. That was an end of their case. What became of the property thereafter was no concern of theirs, and they have no standing to question the decree except in so far as it affects their own claim of title. The court with commendable care used its power to
By the Court: For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.