Wright v. DeFosset

STEPHENS, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court in which a purported will of Alice Parrish, deceased, was declared invalid. The proponent of the will, Matilda A. Wright, who was both a specific and the sole residuary legatee, as well as the executrix by the terms of the instrument, is the appellant. The respondents are nephews and a niece of deceased, and were the contestants below. The case was tried by the court without a jury, and briefly the findings are to the effect that the purported will, although signed by decedent, re-

[284]

suited from the fraud of the proponent and John P. Roche, one of the witnesses to it.

The terms of the proposed will (which we shall hereinafter generally refer to as the will) gave $1,000 each to Maud T. DeFosset, a niece, and Oliver Walker, a nephew, and $2,000 to Matilda A. Wright, sometimes referred to as Mrs. Wright. The writing designated Mrs. Wright as “my beloved nurse”. One dollar is left to each of any other lineal heirs who might establish themselves as such. The estate may be taken as of a value around $10,000, under depressed times. Mrs. Wright had been in the employ of Mrs. Parrish for some six months as housekeeper and personal attendant. Mrs. Parrish was unwell during all of this time, and several months before her death suffered a paralytic stroke which disabled her left arm and hand and her right leg. At this time she was about eighty-one years old. Thereafter she sat in a chair throughout the daytime. Shortly before her death she suffered another stroke. The housekeeper had not known Mrs. Parrish before the service began. John P. Roche claims to have had a slight acquaintance with Mrs. Parrish before Mrs. Wright’s employment, though there is testimony in the case to the contrary. He appeared at the residence of deceased several times, and according to some testimony was quite friendly with Mrs. Wright. On one occasion after the first stroke, according to his testimony, Mrs. Parrish spoke to Roche about taxes and a will. She complained that a Mr. Johnson, who had advised her in a business way, had not responded to her request to draw a will. After some conversation Roche agreed to draw her will, and secured the data. He wrote it out on a typewriter and later brought his neighbor, a Mr. Sellars, to the Parrish home, where the instrument was signed by Mrs. Parrish and by Roche and Sellars as witnesses. Thereafter Roche put the will in his office safe. This, according to him, was at Mrs. Parrish’s request, coupled with a request for complete secrecy of the whole transaction. Mrs. Wright was in the house when the will was signed, but did not come into the room with the other three. She claims that she knew nothing about the drawing of the will and that she did not know she was a beneficiary until after the death of its maker. There is testimony that Mrs. Parrish had drawn