Longanecker v. Sowers

Abjeiíts, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from, the ruling of the trial court in a caveat to. the will of Mrs. Lou K. Longaneeker. The case was tried below on the issues of mental incapacity and undue influence. The caveators were William E. Longaneeker, the husband of testatrix, and Edward Arthur Longaneeker, by Lis father and next friend William E. Longaneeker,. and the eaveatees were Cornelia Sowers and Emelin© Garmong, sisters of the testatrix.

Edward Arthur Longaneeker was a legally adopted son of the testatrix and her husband. At the conclusion of the eaveatees’ testimony the issue of mental capacity was withdrawn from the jury at the instance of eaveatees, and at the conclusion of all the testimony the court granted eaveatees’ first prayer, which was for a directed verdict on the issue of undue influence, and refused the other prayers of eaveatees and all the prayers of caveators. The only exception reserved was to the ruling of the court on the prayer at the conclusion of the case, no exception having been taken to the directed verdict on the issue of mental capacity. ⁵⁸⁶ The will in controversy was executed on the 24th day of October, 1923. It bequeathed to the adopted son one hundred dollars, and directed that the rest and residue of the estate be held in trust during the life of testatrix’s husband for his use and benefit, and that after his death it be distributed to her two sisters Cornelia Sowers and Emeline Garmong, the oaveatees in this case; and should either of them he deceased leaving no children at the time of the death of the husband, her share to go to the survivor; and should neither sister survive the husband, the children of the sister Emaline Garmong to take the entire estate.

The sisters were named as executors “with full power and authority to1 sell the whole of my estate and reduce the same to cash, as soon as possible after the time of my death and to' make distribution as herein directed.” The estate disposed of was estimated by the husband to lie worth from $10,000 to $12,000. It was assessed for the purposes of taxation at $3,009. There was a mortgage against it of $3,000. The property consisted of small houses and lots.

It appears to represent the joint savings of the husband and wife, he having done much of the work in building the houses. Mr. and Mrs. Longanecker had no children bom to them. They adopted the boy, Edward, in 1915, when he was a baby, and raised him as their own child. He was about ten years • old when Mrs. Longanecker committed suicide by hanging, on August 23rd, 1924.

She appears to have been greatly attached to the boy, 'and solicitous about his future, remarking to one witness that she did not know what would become of him when she was gone, as they had nothing, and she di dn’t know who would look after him. It does not appear that the sisters were in any way dependent, both having husbands. The important and only question to be determined on this appeal is, bearing in mind the unnatural provisions of the will and in view of the situation of the testatrix: Is there in the will itself intrinsic evidence, in connection with the ⁵⁸⁷ facts and circumstances proved, enough to have required the issue of undue influence to be submitted to tbe jury % ' Undue influence is that degree of importunity which deprives a testator of his free agency, which is such as .he is too weak or too feeble to- resist, and will render tbe instrument executed under its influence not his free and unconstrained act. Davis v. Calvert, 5 G. & J. 269.

It is closely allied to, and in many of its aspects strongly resembles, actual fraud, and like the latter when most cunningly executed is exceedingly difficult to unmask. The results accomplished in a given ease, the divergence of those results from the course which would ordinarily and naturally be looked for, the situation of the party talcing benefits under a will towards tbe person wbo has