Maryland case law › Clark v. Stansbury

Clark v. Stansbury

49 Md. 346 (1878) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: AffirmedRobinson, J.✓ Good law
HoldingJoseph Stansberry died in October 1876, leaving two papers dated February 1 and April 1, 1876, each purporting to be his last will and testament.

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Joseph Stansberry died in October, 1876, and two papers dated respectively February 1st and April 1st, 1876, each purporting to be his last will and testament were offered for probate in the Orphans’ Court of Carroll County. On the caveat and petition of his widow and four children, issues were sent to the Circuit Court for trial, involving testamentary capacity, fraud, and undue influence. In each of these papers the testator bequeathed to Alfred F. Clark, “ the amount of money set forth in an agreement signed on the 28th December, 1875.” At the trial below this agreement was offered in evidence by the caveators, by which it appears that Stansbury agreed to pay Clark twenty-three hundred dollars, in consideration of which Clark was to take care of and provide for him during his, Stansbury’s, life. 351 They then offered a deed dated 24th December, 1815, by which Stansbury in consideration of love and affection conveyed to Clark and wife a house and lot in Westminster, to the admissibility of which the caveatees objected.

It may he true that the deed in itself' did not in any manner impeach the testamentary capacity of the testator, or show the papers purporting to be his will were executed by fraud or undue influence. But it appeared that Stansbury was living with Clark at the time the deed was executed —that it was prepared at the instance and by the directions of Clark—that Stansbury was an old man over eighty years, in feeble health, and at one time paralyzed and was known for his stingy and miserly habits. The issues before the jury involved fraud and undue influence, and any evidence,- however slight, tending to prove these issues was admissible. The theory on the part of the caveators was, that this deed and the agreement of December 28th and the two wills, were all executed in pursuance of an influence or dominion exercised by Clark over the testator, and which he was unable to resist.

The fact that

This is a preview of Clark v. Stansbury. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.