Thе only exception and assignment of error in tbe record is directed to the eighth special instruction given in response to the prayer of tbe сaveators, to-wit: “The burden is upon tbe caveators to establish fraud or undue influence, and in passing upon this question it is your duty to take into consideration tbe relation of tbe alleged testator to the devisees; bis age and state of health at tbe time; tbe circumstances surrounding bim, and tbe manner of disрosition of such property; and if from all the circumstances surrounding tbe execution of tbe said paper-writing, you shall find tbat the said paper-writing was influenced by tbe beneficiaries, or any of them, then you will answer tbe issue No.” Tbe criticism of this instruction is to the use of the word “influenced” in tbe concluding sentence, in tbe absence of any qualifying word. Tbe propounders say tbat thereby tbe jury were instructed to return a verdict in condemnation of the will if they found tbat the alleged testator was in any way, or to any extent, influenced to execute it by tbe propounders. The exception is well taken and must be sustained unless, as contended by tbe caveators, tbe error is rendered harmless by what is said in other portions of tbe charge. Tbat a person may by proper influences be induced to make a valid disposition of bis property is well settled. As if such influences
*402
be addressed to his sense of justice, his affection, or his relation to other persons, there can be no possible valid objection, either in law or morals. The kind and degree of influence which thе law denounces as undue, and therefore vitiating, are such as overrule and control, dominate and direct the mind and will of the person operаted upon.
Wright v.
Howe,
The сaveators make no contention in regard to the law, but direct attention to the entire charge of his Honor, and say that when read as a whole instruction it is impossible for the jury to have been misled by the failure at this point to use the word “undue” or some other appropriate term. It is settled that if a charge is contradictory in presenting material aspects of the law a new trial will be awarded. This must be so, because this Court cannot know to what extent the jury is misled or confused.
Williams v. Haid, 118
N. C., 481. It is equally well settled that when reading the entire charge it is manifest that the jury could not in any reasonable view have misunderstood the real matter in controversy, or the law bearing thereon, a new trial will not be awarded. To the criticism made of the charge in
Lewis v. Sloan,
His Honor’s charge was very full and cleаr. There is no possible criticism to be made of it, certainly not by the propounders, except in the particular pointed out. He gave *403 tbe jury a full and. clear statement of tbe contentions of tbe parties and of tbe testimony. He also stated correctly tbe definition and test of mental capacity requisite to make a will, and of wbat constituted such undue influence as would invalidate a will. He further said tbat “Tbe caveators contend tbаt if you should find tbat at all times tbe testator bad sufficient mind to apprehend, understand and know tbe consequences of bis act in making the will and disposing of bis prоperty, yet tbe evidence shows tbat tbe testator’s mind was very weak and feeble; tbat bis disease was such as to weaken bis mind; tbat being weak in body and mind be wаs surrounded by tbe beneficiaries of tbe will, and tbat their influence, domination and control over him were such as to put him in fear, to coerce and influence and force bis conduct in writing tbe will as it was made, аnd by these means tbe will of tbe testator was perverted from its free action or thrust aside entirely, and the will of tbe beneficiaries substituted for tbe will of tbe tеstator; tbe caveators must show to you by tbe greater weight of evidence tbat these infectious influences existed, and tbat they, tbe beneficiariеs, were successful in procuring tbe making of the will as it was made. If you find as a fact from tbe evidence tbat tbe testator lived an adulterous life, cut loоse and abandoned his children begotten in lawful wedlock, and lived entirely, or a greater part of tbe time, with Lottie Wilson, bis mistress, treating her as bis lawful wife and rеcognizing tbe children begotten by her as bis offspring, these facts and circumstances alone would not be sufficient to show fraud, undue influence and coercion in making tbe will; but you may consider them along with other facts and circumstances in passing upon the question of fraud, undue influence and coerciоn, which is alleged by tbe caveators to have existed at tbe time of tbe execution of tbe will. If you find there was no fraud, undue influence, «coercion or threats which procured tbe execution of tbe will, *404 and that tbe testator bad mental capacity to make tbe will on tbe 24th of February, 1903, it would be your duty to answer tbe issue Yes.”
We think that in view of this clear and explicit instruction in regard to tbe kind and degree of influence which would invalidate tbe will, tbe jury could nоt have understood bis Honor to say, or to mean, that any other test should bo applied to tbe will, or that they should disregard all that be bad theretoforе said to them upon that point. Tbe language of
Mr. Justice Montgomery
in
Crenshaw v.
Johnson,
No Error.
dubitante. I feat we are too muсh influenced in tbis case by its intrinsic equities, and that in our desire to prevent injustice we are ignoring those settled principles of law which experience has shown to be essential to the permanent administration of justice itself. It is always dangerous to stretch general principles too far to cоver particular cases. A late eminent statesman, who was regarded as somewhat inflexible in his opinions, said that he was afraid to stretch a prinсiple or a blanket too much at the edges, as he might split it down the middle.
This case goes beyond
Crenshaw v.
Johnson,