Snyder v. Cearfoss

Markell, J., filed the following dissenting opinion: I find no evidence (as distinguished from suspicion) that Abraham’s sisters would have had any valid claim against the validity of his will, made twenty years before his death, or against Jesse as beneficiary. This court has never held that the presumption of invalidity of a disputed transaction between attorney and client (Baker v. Otto, 180 Md. 53 , 22 A. 2d 924 ) is applicable to a will in favor of the attorney who drew the will. In Griffith v. Diffenderffer, 50 Md. 466 , the court distinguished between a transaction inter vivos and a will, and held that the fact that the beneficiary drew the will was only a suspicious circumstance and did not give rise to a presumption of invalidity. See also Cook v. Hollyday, 185 Md. 656 , 45 A. 2d 761, 765, 766 .

Perhaps there can be no universal rule that a testamentary provision in favor of a lawyer who drew the will is or is not presumptively ⁶⁴⁵ invalid. See Cornell Law Quarterly, Vol. XXXI, page 80, cited in the Cook case. At all events, the sisters never disputed Abraham’s will, and the will, therefore, was not a disputed transaction to which any such presumption could attach.

There is no evidence whatever that Abraham’s sisters ever made or suggested any claim, valid or