Connelly v. Beall

Alvey, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from an order of the Orphans’ Court of Montgomery County directing certain issues to be transmitted to the Circuit Court for that county to be tried. These issues were formed on a caveat to the will, or paper writing purporting to be the will, of Catharine A. Whalan, deceased. The appellee here is the caveator, claiming as sole heir and next-of-kin of the deceased, and the appellants, the caveatees, claim under the will.

There were six issues formed and ordered to be transmitted for trial. They are:— 1st. Whether the paper writing, dated the 28th of September, 1844, purporting to be the last will and testament of Catharine A. Whalan, is the last will and testament of said deceased ? 2nd. Whether the said paper writing, dated, &c., was executed by the said Catherine A. Whalan, when she was of sound and disposing mind, and capable of making a valid deed or contract ? 3rd.

Whether the said paper writing was executed and attested as required by law to pass the title to real estate ? 4th. Whether the said paper writing was procured by the fraud, circumvention, undue influence, and misrep ¹¹⁸ resentation of Thomas Connelly, practiced upon her at a time when, from her diseased or enfeebled mental condition, she was unable to resist the same? 5th. Whether the execution of said paper writing was obtained by the exercise of an undue influence, dominion or control over the said Catharine A. Whalan, by the said Thomas Connelly, and which, in her then condition, she was unable to resist? 6th. Whether the said Catharine A. Whalan, at the time of executing said paper writing, had sufficient mental or testamentary capacity to know the nature and extent of her property, and the relative claims of those who should have been the objects of her bounty ?

The order of the Orphans' Court directed these issues to he tried, and that the paper writing, purporting to be the last will and testament of Catharine A. Whalan, and which was in the custody of the register of wills, should he transmitted to the Circuit Court with such issues. The sixth issue is objected to as being but the mere statement of facts fully covered by, and made admissible under, the second issue; and that, if the second issue he found for the caveator, it would embrace all the facts that could he given in evidence under the sixth issue proposed. In this contention of the appellants we entirely agree. The statute has fixed the standard of mental capacity to enable a party to make a valid last will and testament.

That standard is prescribed in these terms: “No will, testament or codicil shall he good and effectual for any purpose whatsoever, unless the person making the same he at the time of executing or acknowledging it, of sound and disposing mind, and capable of executing a valid deed or contract.” This standard prescribed by the statute requires a further definition by the Court, as to what condition of mind is required to enable a party to execute a valid deed or contract. But an issue formed in the ¹¹⁹ terms of the statute, presents a mixed question of law and fact; and that question can always he submitted to the jury under proper instructions by the Court. This test, as prescribed by the statute, is fully presented by the second issue; and every fact that could be offered under the sixth issue can be availed of under the second ; and there is therefore no good purpose to he subserved by attempting to bring the mind of the deceased to a different standard or test of