Case ID: howell-np_1/html/0257-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wayne Circuit.
    
    EDWIN F. CONELY, Proponent of the last Will of FIRTH A. McDONALD, Deceased, vs. HENRIETTA McDONALD, Contestant.
    
    
      Driefrefenmce to the case. — Extract from the argument of J. Logan Chip-man to the jury.
    
    In the year 1866, in the city of Washington, Henrietta McCain, the contestant, was married to the above named Firth A. McDonald. Both were young, with bright promise of future happiness and prosperity. Neither had worldly possessions worth mentioning. Mr. McDonald was at that time in the employ of the late Gov. John J. Bagley, of Detroit, as a commercial traveler for the latter’s tobacco house. The young couple took up their residence and lived happily together thereafter in the city of Detroit. Each almost idolized 'the other. It was not long before Mr. McDonald was taken into the firm of J. J. Bagley & Co. as one of the junior partners. During the few years that he was connected with the firm, he accumulated about $15,000, which, by the will in controversy, was left principally to his brothers and nephews and nieces; his widow, the contestant, being left but $1,000 and a small lot in the remote village of Capac, worth, per- ' haps, $50.00, in lieu of every possible claim she might have against the estate. This will was made in June, 1875. About a year previous to this, he had made a will by which he gave the greater portion of his property to contestant. In the interval Mr. and Mrs. McDonald made a trip to California, for the benefit of the former’s health, he having had for years previous consumptive symptoms. Not getting any benefit from the climate of California, he returned to Detroit shortly before the will in controversy was made, coming by way of the Isthmus to New York city ; his wife returning, at his request, by the Pacific Railroad. He could not bear the long ride by rail. His brother, Joel McDonald, of Detroit, met him in the city of New York and came home with him. Mr. and Mrs. McDonald stopped at the Michigan Exchange at Detroit for some little time after this. Then Joel McDonald invited his-brother to his house on High street, where he could be more tenderly cared for than in a bustling, noisy hotel. The contestant supposed she was going with him, but she was only allowed to visit him (according to her testimony), in the presence of Joel McDonald, or one of his family, except on one or two occasions. There had never been any personal difficulty between deceased and contestant. Having no children, each devoted an unusual amount of attention to the other ; he purchasing for her the most beautiful and costly gifts, and saying repeatedly to John B. Stoutenburgh, a partner in the firm of J. J. Bagley & Co. (now a member of the Detroit Board of Public Works), that “nothing was too good for Ret,” (the name he gave contestant). Soon after the will was made the testator went to Germany and died at Badenweiller August 26, 1875.
    
      The will was contested on the grounds of unsoundness of mind and the unduelnfluence of Joel McDonald.
    The Probate Court (Judge Wilkinson), after a long contest, admitted the will to probate. On the trial in the Circuit Court of contestant’s appeal from the Probate Court, one witness stated in his testimony, among other things, that a certain person interested in sustaining the will, had said to him that Mrs. McDonald’s contest wo aid be useless, as she had no money, while the opposite side was well provided with means.
    This called from J. Logan Chipman, who made the closing argument on the side of contestant, substantially the following argument. His closing argument in this case was said by his friends to be as good as he • had ever delivered in any case.
    EXTRACT FROM THE ARGUMENT OE J. LOGAN CHIPMAN.
    Money is King, and rules with imperious sway in many places. In the world of commerce, money is the great factor, and overtops all others. Money digs the excavations and enables Toil to enter the temples of trade. Money drew myriads of men from the Celestial Empire across the broad Pacific, and soon the great western plains, mountains, and the Pacific slope, were spanned by the steel rails, and soon the iron horse awakened the echoes of the'Rockies and Sierres, and startled the red man in his ancestral hunting grounds.
    Money finds the waters of our lakes and rivers, and of old ocean, little disturbed by the prows or keels of the ships that plow their waters, and, waving his magic wand, lo! the great steamers speed across the main, and myriads of sails, white as vestal robes, cheer the mariner’s heart, make glad the traveler on the world’s highways and rejoice the commercial world.
    Money finds the vast manufactory dumb, and dull, and voiceless; and speaks to it the word of life, and sets flying its machinery, whose products find their way to the shops and homes and farms of our citizens.
    Money is King in many places, but when he steps with haughty mien and imperious tread towards the tribunal where Law holds in equipoise the scales of Justice, knocks for admission, and would fain seize the reins of power, this mighty king becomes as the dust we tread on in the street, and judge and jury trample him (here the speaker stamped his foot upon the floor) with scorn and contempt beneath their feet!
    The verdict was for contestant on the ground of unsoundness of mind. Judge Reilly refused to grant a new trial. Proponént took the case to the Supreme Court, where, in a very able and elaborate opinion, the judgment of the Circuit was affirmed. (40 Mich. 150.)
    (October, 1877.)
    
      E. F. Conely, F. A. Baker, and Ashley Pond for Proponent.
    
      Chas. B. Howell, J. Logan Chipman, and Chas. I. Walker for Contestant.