Case ID: la_165/html/0889-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ST. PAUL, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(116 So. 223)
    No. 27159.
    Succession of CONNOR. LIVAUDAIS v. BYNUM et al.
    Feb. 13, 1928.
    Rehearing Denied March 12, 1928.
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    1. Insane persons &wkey;>4&wkey;Commitment to insane asylum under statute is matter of police regulation and produces none of effects of formal interdiction (Act No. 253 of 1910).
    A mere commitment to an insane asylum under Act No. 253 of 1910 produces none of the effects of a formal interdiction, since it is merely a matter of police regulation.
    2. Wills <&wkey;37 — Will made by one committed to insane asylum during lucid interval held valid (Act No. 253 of 1910).
    Where testator having made a will became insane and was committed to an insane asylum under Act No. 253 of 1910, but was never formally interdicted, and thereafter his wife in whose favor will was made had her marriage annulled and then remarried, will of testator during lucid interval revoking former will held valid, in view of testimony of physician skilled in mental diseases that he was of sound mind and memory when later will was made.
    Appeal from Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Ouachita; Percy Sandel, Judge.
    In the matter of the succession of Thomas N. Connor. From a judgment denying probate of will in favor of Mrs. Ethel Connor Livaudais, she appeals.
    Affirmed.
    H. H.' Russell and George Gunby, both of Monroe, for appellant.
    Stubbs & Thompson, of Monroe, for appellees.
   ST. PAUL, J.

The deceased made a -will in favor of his wife. Then he became insane and was committed to an insane asylum under the provision of Act No. 253 of 1910; but he was never formally interdicted.

For a while ,his wife remained loyal to him. But afterwards she had her marriage to him annulled, and then remarried.

Thereupon he made a new will revoking his former’ will and bequeathing his estate to his legal heirs.

The only question involved is whether this later will be valid.

I.

We are not prepared to hold that even a formal interdiction deprives the person interdicted ipso facto of all power to make, alter, or revoke a will, even during a lucid interval. The law allows a formal interdiction for other causes than insanity, to wit, physical infirmities. R. C. C. art. 422. See, also, Act 100 of 1890. But it is hardly to be supposed the law meant to deprive a person so interdicted of the right to make a will.

But however that may be, this deceased was never formally interdicted, because a mere commitment to an insane asylum under the provisions of Act No. 253 of 1910 produces none of the effects of a formal interdiction; it is a mere matter of police regulation. Oliver v. Terrall, 152 La. 662, 94 So. 152; Vance v. Ellerbe, 150 La. 388, 90 So. 735. And the only question before us now is whether the later will was made during a lucid interval.

II.

The question is only one of fact; and the uneontradicted evidence in the record Is that the deceased made his later will during one of his lucid intervals, and when he knew full well what he was doing and why he was doing so.

The making of the will was witnessed by a reputable, disinterested, and competent physician, particularly skilled in mental diseases ; and before witnessing the will he watched the testator carefully for many days and satisfied himself that the testator was of sound mind and memory when he made the later will. He is corroborated by the testimony of one of the sisters of the deceased, whose testimony is not- impeached in any way. And the making of the will, under the circumstances first above indicated, was in itself as reasonable an act as could be expected of any one. The trial judge thought the later will valid, and so do we.

Decree.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

THOMPSON, J., recused.