Majority
Headnote
Will— testa mentí ity capacity.The substantial and 'material facts in tliis case are undisputed. The contestant is tlie son of tbe testator, and the proponent of tbe will is liis widow.
The deceased was upwards of seventy years of age and had married the proponent about six months prior to his death. He had been sick with heart disease for about a month prior to the execution of liis will. A good part of tlie time lie was unable to sleep or lie down, or to take sufficient nourishment, and at times lie was flighty and light headed.
The will bore date of December 7, 1894, and was executed on the evening of that day. It was witnessed by his family physician, Dr.
The eoiitestant called one witness who saw the testator the day after the will was executed, who testified that he was then irrational. Another witness saw him three times between the eighth and the twenty-third of December, when he died. The witness testified that at such times he was irrational. Another witness saw him after December thirteenth and testified that he was then irrational. Mr. Wright, who drew the will, testified that he called on him on the afternoon of December seventh - that he was then irrational and that he (Wright) would not allow him to execute the will. There was no evidence to support the charge of undue influenqe, and, upon the testimony which I have quoted, we are of the opinion that the surrogate properly decided that the testator was competent to execute the will.
The irrational conversations which were testified to by the contestant’s witnesses did not prove that the testator was insane. They were manifestations of the progress of the disease from which he suffered, and indicated a weak mind as the result of suffering from lack of rest and proper nourishment. These periods of irrational action and lack of sound mental control were temporary, and when they had passed the testator was able to attend to business and to understand the nature and character of his acts. They were fully explained by his physician, and there was absolutely no testimony to contradict the statements of Dr. Winter and Mrs. Neidhardt that when he executed the will his mind was clear.
The deci-ee must be affirmed, with costs to be paid by the ap>pellant.
Pratt and Dykman, JJ., concurred.
Decree of ■ surrogate affirmed, with costs to be paid by appellant.