10 Mich. 155 | Mich. | 1862
Lead Opinion
The relevancy of evidence depends on the issue to be-tried. Some cases admit of a much wider range than, others. Where the motive of a person for doing an act out of the ordinary course of events is a legitimate subject of inquiry, under the issue, all the surrounding circumstances and influences that might have contributed to or caused such motive may be inquired into.
The plaintiffs in error, Mrs. White and Mrs. Blood, are children of Mudge, the testator. His only children, it is to be presumed, as no mention is made of any others.
By direction of the Circuit Court an issue was made in that Court to determine the following facts: 1st. The domicil of Mudge at the time of his death: 2d. Whether the alleged will was his last will and testament, and 3d. Whether he was of a sound and disposing mind at the -time the same was made, and was not under the iindue influence of Bailey or some other person at the time.
It was on the trial of this issue that the several exceptions to the admission or rejection Lof evidence we are called to pass upon were taken.
The simple fact that the testator had by his will disinherited his children, and had given his property to one not related to him by blood or marriage, is so repugnant to parental feeling, and out of the course of things, as to excite more or less suspicion in the mind that all was not right. And when in connection with this unnatural ■act of the testator, it appears that he was an old man, infirm in health, and had but a few months previously left the house of a daughter and gone to live with Bailey,' at whose house the will was made but two or three days before his death, this suspicion is so far strengthened by these additional circumstances as to give it the semblance of reality. Altogether they would, and unexplained should, have more or less influence with the jury: The following questions or others of a like character would most likely be found suggesting themselves to the mind; Why did the testator disinherit his children? Why did he deave his daughter’s house and go to live with the appellee
Now aE the questions put and answered, to which exceptions were taken, elicited facts tending to answer these suggestions, and to remove the influence the untoward circumstances we have stated would, unexplained, have had on the jury; or to prove the sound and disposing mind of the testator. The object of most of the questions was. to prove the ill-treatment of the testator in' his old age by-his children. And although a wide range was allowed for that purpose in some of the questions put, we do not think the Court erred therein. Men’s minds are so differently constituted and operated on, that what will influence the action of one wiU frequently have no influence on another. Hence it was sufficient to warrant the question, if the thing sought to be proved might have contributed to alienate the testator’s parental feelings, and to create in his mind a dislike for his children. Such a state of mind would furnish a motive for giving .his property to. another, and repel all suspicion of undue influence.
' What we have said disposes of some fifteen exceptions; but there are others that we must notice separately.
One Doctor Blumerick, was examined as a witness for the plaintiffs in error. The Doctor testified that he knew the testator, and had doctored him at Mr. Blood’s, and. that he saw him frequently untü within two or three months before his death; that he first saw him about nine or nine and a half years before the trial, and then doctored him for inflamation of the lungs, connected with a pain, in the head; that he discovered lightness in the head;-,
The question we think was properly excluded. It asked lor the doctor’s opinion of the mental capacity of the testator some two or three months before he made his will. Mental capacity for what? To make a will, for that was in issue. This is a question of law, and not of medical science. It is for the jury, under the instruction of the Court as to what is sufficient mental capacity to make a will, to decide on its existence or non-existence when the will was executed, from the facts testified to by the witness, and not from the witness’ opinion regarding such tacts. The jury, and not the witness, are to draw the conclusion from the facts stated by the witness. The opinion of a physician as to the existence of disease, or a particular malady, and its effect upon the mind, would 'be evidence. But a physician’s opinion regarding mental capacity generally, or the mental capacity necessary to make a will, is, in the eye of the law, no better than that of any other person.
A Doctor Allen was also examined as a witness for plaintiffs in error. After his examination, and after the plaintiffs in error, who were defendants in the Circuit Court, had examined their witnesses, and the plaintiff had closed his rebutting evidence, the doctor was recalled by the plain
Tne objection to Chubb . as a witness on the ground that he was surety on the appeal bond given by the defendant in error, was properly overruled by the Court. He was not a party to the appeal, nor was it prosecuted in whole or in part in his immediate and individual behalf: Comp. L. §4339.
The only remaining question is, whether the verdict of the jury warrants the judgment of the Court admitting the will to probate. The jury found the will in question was the last will and testament of Luther Mudge deceased, and that at the time of executing it he was of a sound and disposing mind and memory, and capable of disposing of his property by will. But they did not find whether it was “made under undue influence from said Bailey or any other person.” They could not have found as they did, that the will in question was the last will and testament of Luther Mudge, without at the same time having found that it was made of his own free will and accord, and not under or in consequence of any Undue extraneous influence. All such influence is necessarily negatived in finding the will to be his will. And the law is too well settled to need discussion, that where the issue found necessarily negatives the one not found, the judgment will not be reversed: — Brooks v. Delrymple, 1 Mich. 145 ; Law v. Merrills, 6 Wend. 268.
Concurrence Opinion
I concur with my brother Manning in the conclusion that there was no error in the rulings and proceedings-below. But, so far as relates to the exclusion of Blumerick’s testimony concerning the capacity of the testator, I think there were good reasons for the decision beyond those relating to the mere form of the question, which is not in itself to my mind very conclusive.
Doctor Blumerick was introduced apparently as a medical expert, to give opinions not supposed to be receivable from others. Undoubtedly there are many cases in which medical witnesses can do this. They may sometimes, where a question arises upon the proper scientific conclusions depending on facts sworn to by others, give their opinions upon a hypothesis presented to them, as to what such facts denote. Before doing so, however, the witness must be examined as to his qualifications as an expert. But when he is examined concerning facts which have occurred under his own observation, and his opinion is required concerning the proper inferences from those facts, he occupies, as to the facts themselves, the same position with all other witnesses, although there may be some questions arising out of the facts which he can answer and which others can not. Upon questions of mental capacity even non-professional witnesses may give evidence, not only of specific facts and conduct falling under their own observation, but also of the impression they derived at the time, involving to some extent matters of opinion. The difference between them and those who in addition to being eye witnesses are also experts, is, that there may be peculiar indications which the latter-understand better, and concerning which they can express an opinion as scientific deductions, and not wore common sense inferences. But neither class
It is certainly very far from clear that in such a case as the one before us there was any room for the evidence of experts. The previous evidence of Blumerick — so far as it went — tended to negative any thing like insanity, and referred only to weakness arising from natural decay, and age. Without undertaking to lay down any inflexible rule, it certainly must, as I think, be very rarely true that experts can in such eases give a jury more light than can be derived from other intelligent eye witnesses. Such was the view taken in Dewitt v. Barly, 17 N. Y. 340; and such is the result of common experience.
In the case before us, Dr. Blumerick was asked, from what he saw on a certain occasion several months before the death of Mudge, what was the mental capacity of the latter. He had given no testimony whatever concerning any facts or appearances. It did not. appear from Ms evidence whether his attention had been called to this particular subject. In short he had stated no fact whatever which either a jury or another witness could apply or test. While there are many cases in which a want of capacity three months before a will is executed must indicate a continued incapacity, there are others which
Had the witness been fully examined concerning his. means of observation, and also concerning the facts he actually observed, it is possible that the question put, although somewhat loo broad in form, might not have been legally objectionable; and it does not seem to have been objected to on this account. But, standing alone, it was certainly immaterial what opinion any person had formed upon the condition of the deceased, because there was no legal basis shown on which it could be rested.
I concur in sustaining- the judgment.
Concurrence Opinion
I concur with my brethren that the judgment should be affirmed. The question put to Dr. Blumerick was properly overruled, both because it was incompetent — the question at issue not being of mental capacity merely— and also because he had not shown that intimacy of knowledge of Mudge and of his capacity at the time of making the will which would enable him to testify either as an expert or in any other capacity. How far the testimony sought to be obtained from him is admissible, and under what circumstances, are questions upon which Courts somewhat differ; and I do not deem their consideration necessary, so long as the witness was not shown competent to give-it under any rule.
Judgment affirmed.
