Estate of MacCrellish

MELVIN, J.

Certain of the heirs of Mary P. MacCrellish, deceased, successfully contested and secured judgment for revocation of the probate of a document which had been executed as her last will and testament. One of the grounds of contest was undue influence alleged to have been exerted by William P. Edwardes and Mary W. Edwardes, the appellants, but a nonsuit was granted in their favor regarding this ground. Upon the other ground,—namely, the alleged incapacity of the testatrix, the jury found in favor of the contestants and this appeal is by proponents from the judgment entered in accordance with said verdict and from the order denying a motion for a new trial.

Appellants specify several alleged errors, but we find it necessary to consider only their contention that the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict.

The will was in due form and was properly witnessed by men who testified at the trial to their firm belief in the testamentary capacity of Mrs. MacCrellish at the time the instrument was executed. The will was a simple and by no means an unnatural one. The contestants were Mrs. MacCrellish’s nieces and nephew of the half blood. They resided in Philadelphia and were not upon terms of close intimacy with Mrs. MacCrellish. By the will their mother was bequeathed the sum of one hundred dollars and a like amount was to go to each of them. To her husband’s nephew, Dr. A. C. Peterson, she bequeathed one thousand dollars and to her business agent, H. M. Wooley, five hundred dollars. Her “beloved sister Martha V. Woodward” was mentioned in the will but was left nothing on the ground that Mrs. Woodward was “already well provided for. ’ ’ The residue of the estate was to be divided as follows: To Mrs. Edwardes, her niece with whom she had lived for some years, one-half; to the grand nephew

[713]

of testatrix, Vance P. Edwardes, one-tenth; to a grand niece, Helen Kaufman, one-tenth; to a nephew, Thomas B. Woodward, and a grand nephew, Robert S. Woodward, each one-twentieth; to a grand niece, Isabel Melsted, one-tenth, and to Ethel Glenn, another grand niece, one-tenth.

The witnesses to the will were Rod W. Church and H. F. Whitney. The former had not met Mrs. MacCrellish before the occasion when the will was signed, but he talked with her and asked her some questions regarding the will. Her demeanor and her answers convinced him that she was of sound mind. The other witness, Wm. P. Whitney, one of the appellants, had drawn the will from memoranda furnished by Mr. Edwardes, and had given the paper to Mr. Edwardes the day before it was signed. He had met Mrs. MacCrellish a few times before the third day of January, 1911, the date of the execution of her will. Like Mr. Church, he was of the opinion that she was of sound and disposing mind and memory on that day. Two other witnesses not interested in the outcome of the contest testified very strongly to Mrs. MacCrellish’s sanity and capacity to make a will. Dr. John Kastendieck, who had known her well and had formerly been her medical adviser, saw her on the Christmas day before the execution of the will. His visit was of a social nature and he found her in excellent health and spirits. Though an aged woman who had lived eighty-two years, she was strong mentally, and he considered her amply qualified to make a will. Mrs. Jessie Walker, who had known her well for years, last saw Mrs. MacCrellish in February, 1911. She testified most positively to the old lady’s excellent mental condition. Mr. Edwardes, the only other witness for the proponents, was the executor of the estate. He was also of the opinion that the will was the deliberate product of a sound and disposing mind. Opposed to this testimony was that of Dr. Peterson, one of the legatees who was a nephew of the deceased husband of the testatrix, and Mr. H. M. Wooley, another legatee, who had been Mrs. MacCrellish’s business agent for some years. Dr. Peterson testified that he had noticed peculiarities and conduct out of the ordinary on the part of his aunt from time to time after the fire of 1906. His testimony, however, is descriptive of an old lady, wanting an acute memory, perhaps, and doubtless somewhat peculiar, but not altogether without