Naudain v. Coudon

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This case was tried in the Circuit Court for Cecil County, upon issues sent from the Orphans’ Court of that county under a caveat by the appellant to the will of Mrs. Caroline Naudain, of Cecil County. There were five issues upon which the case was submitted to the jury, but the fourth is the one with which we are principally concerned here. It is as follows : Whether the said Caroline Naudain at the time of the execution of the paper-writing, dated the 12th of June, 1895, understood the contents of said paper-writing.

The prayers on both sides were conceded at the trial, except the defendant’s ninth prayer, and an exception to the granting of this prayer presents the questions to be passed upon on this appeal. By the ninth prayer the jury were instructed, that “ if Mrs. Caroline Naudain executed the paper offered in evidence as her will in the manner testified to by the subscribing witnesses, and also find that on the ¹²⁸ evening before the will was executed Nelson E. Whitaker read the same over to her, and shall also find that at the time of the execution of the will she was capable of understanding the business in which she was engaged and of executing a valid deed or contract, then the legal presumption is that she knew and understood the contents of said paper.” And this prayer was granted in connection with the plaintiff’s fourth prayer, which read's thus : “ That the defendant was bound under the fourth issue, to satisfy the jury that Mrs. Caroline Naudain understood the contents of the paper dated the 12th of June, 1895, and unless the jury are so satisfied, the verdict must be for the plaintiff on the fourth issue.” It is contended upon the part of the appellant that the defendant’s ninth prayer was erroneous and should not have been granted. A similar prayer, with but a slight modification, was granted upon a similar issue to the fourth issue here and was approved by this Court in Taylor v. Creswell, 45 Md. 427 . It was there said: “ It is essential of course to the validity of every will that the party making it should know and understand its contents, otherwise it is not his will.

But where a person of sound mind executes a will and the same is his free and voluntary act, the law presumes knowledge on his part of its contents. This presumption, it is true, may be rebutted by the facts and circumstances surrounding its execution and cases may arise in which it is proper to submit to the jury the distinct question, whether the testator understood its contents.” Now, in the case at bar the jury were specifically instructed by the plaintiff’s fourth prayer that the defendant was bound to satisfy them that the testatrix understood the contents of the will, and unless they were so satisfied, their verdict must be for the plaintiff. It thus appears that the jury were distinctly told, that the presumption under the defendant’s ninth prayer was not conclusive, and notwithstanding this presumption, unless they were satisfied under the facts and circumstances of the case, that the testatrix ¹²⁹ understood the contents of the will, their verdict must be for the plaintiff. We can perceive no error in these instructions and they properly submitted the law, as