Case ID: ark_226/html/0144-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lee Seamster, Chief Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Barnard v. First Methodist Church of Mena.
    5-900
    288 S. W. 2d 595
    Opinion delivered April 2, 1956.
    
      James D. Stoker, Bonn G. Allison and W. C. Benton, for appellant.
    
      Nabors Shaw, for appellee.
   Lee Seamster, Chief Justice.

Mrs. E. Maria Barnard McKee died February 12, 1955. The appellee offered for probate as her holographic will the following instrument.

“To the Methodist Church of Mena, Arkansas.
“I, E. Maria McKee being of sound mind I give to this church for the purpose of educating youth to Christ ■— all my possessions to be disposed or used as tbe Board of Stewards and tbe Minister sees fit.
‘ ‘ Signed—
“Mrs. E. Maria Barnard McKee
1010 Janssen Ave.
Mena, Arkansas
“My band and seal
Dec. 29th, 1947”

Tbe Polk Probate Court ordered tbe instrument admitted to probate as tbe last will and testament of Mrs. McKee. Tbis appeal is from tbat order.

Tbe appellants are tbe brothers, sisters and a niece of tbe deceased, ber next of kin. Tbe appellants contend tbat tbe instrument, so probated as tbe decedent’s holographic will, is not testamentary in character and tbe court erred in considering extrinsic evidence to supply tbe animus testandi which was not apparent in tbe writing.

Tbe will was found in Mrs. McKee’s strong box, in an envelope which also contained a will dated 1945. Tbe previous will gave all of ber property to ber husband. Tbe husband bad died several months before tbe will here in question was written.

Tbe phrase “being of sound mind” is one usually used in writing wills; she disposed of all of ber property in tbe instrument, which would include ber food and clothing. Tbis provision could not reasonably become effective until after ber death. Tbe purpose for which she wanted all of ber property used was for “educating youths to Christ.” She delegated to tbe appellee tbe power to carry out tbe provisions of ber will.

We bold tbe instrument to be testamentary in character and tbat the animus testandi is apparent from tbe writing. Cartwright v. Cartwright, 158 Ark. 278, 250 S. W. 11.

Tbe appellants also contend tbat tbe proof was not sufficient to establish said will by three credible, disinterested witnesses because some of the witnesses were members of the appellee chnrch.

Mr. Bill Lauck Wood, a chnrch member witness, was an officer of the bank where the deceased transacted her business. Mr. William G. Spencer, a church member witness, was her lawyer — all such witnesses were mature and no gain would inure to any of them, individually, under the will. They were competent witnesses. See 57 Am. Jur. p. 243,- Sec. 320.

The statutory method of making the proof of a holographic will is found in Ark. Stats. 1947, Section 62-2117, Sub-Sec. B. The proof in this case was sufficient to establish the validity of the will. Sanders v. Abernathy, 221 Ark. 407, 253 S. W. 2d 351.

The court’s action in probating the will is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.