Newman v. Smith

<p>1. In order to constitute a sound disposing mind, a testator must not only Ije able to understand that he by his will giving the whole of his property to one object of his regard, but he must also have capacity to comprehend the extent of his property, and the nature of the claims of others, whom, by his will, he is excluding from all participation in that property.</p> <p>2. It is essential that the testator has sufficient capacity to comprehend perfectly the condition of his property, his relations to the persons who were, or should, or might have been the objects of his bounty, and the scope and bearing of the provisions of his will. He must have sufficient active memory to collect in his mind, without prompting, the particulars or elements of the business to be trancactetd, and to hold them in his mind a sufficient length of time to perceive at least their obvious relations to each other, and be able to form some rational judgment in relation to them.</p> <p>3. An entire change from former testamentary intentions, is a strong circumstance to support a claim of undue influence.</p> <p>4. Where there is an insane delusion in regard to one who is the object of the testator’s bounty, which causes him to make a will which he would not have made but for that delusion, such will cannot be sustained.</p> <p>5. Where the fact that the testator has been subject to any insane delusion has been established, a will should be regarded with great distrust, and every presumption should in the first instance be made against it.</p> <p>6. Undue influence can seldom if ever be established by direct-evidence, but may be shown by its results, and it may become the only legitimate inference from the facts and circumstances in the case.</p> <p>7. A will should not be disturbed because it is unreasonable and unjust, but where as in the instant case it does violence to the natural instincts of the heart, to the dictates of fatherly affection, to natural justice, to solemn promises, and to moral duty, such unexplained inequality and unreasonableness is entitled to great influence in considering the question of testamentary capacity and undue influence.</p> <p>'3. Apparent inequality or unreasonableness in a testamentary disposition is entitled, in proportion to its degree of flagraney, to some auxiliary influence on the question of capacity, or fraud or controlling influence; and, unexplained and combined with other corroborating evidence, it may be entitled to great influence.</p>