The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-06-26
The Tyler viii Case.

NEW YORK SUPREME CoUHT, COUNTY OF RICH.
MoND.-Julia G. Tyler vs.. David L. Gardiner
and others.-Gilbert, 1.-THE due execution o.
the will, its attestation conformably to the
statute, ard the testabe capacity of the testa-
triS we're conceded upon the argument. Upon
the evidence these matters admit OF no dispute
The bill was contested before the Surroga
successfully, upon the ground that 1t was pro-
cured by Mrs. Tyler By means OF undue intu-
ences; and we are to determine whether the
evidence establishes, OF, as matter OF law,
whether IL tends 10 establish this TACT 1t will
he well in the outset to ascertain the 1gal sign1
fcation OF thus phrase, under influence" IL is
evident, from the frequency of cases of this
kind, tnat very loose notions on the subject are
prevalent. 1t may not be, and probably is not,
practicable, 10 reduce the cases into systematic
classification. Sull, upon all the cases. as well as
upon principle, 1t seems clear that no influence
ls "undue" IN contemplation OF law, which
has not in II the element OF compulsion, or art-
tce, or fraud. "a person has right by iair
alignment or persuasion to induce another to
make will in his own favor" blanchard VS..
Nestle, Den. 43l, even 10 the exclusion of
Others, who may appear to have equal claims
upon his bounty. The right OF testamentary
disposition in favor of benedcIaries who are
qualified to take, Is, and on grounds of public
policy ought to be, absolute. Having examined
the evidence attentlveIy, we have found in it
nothing tending TO prove that Mrs. Tyler used
Oily influence (certalnly none that was ''unlue")
to procure the making of the will in question.
The burden was upon the contestant,
not TO beget surmises and suspicious, but
to prove facts sufficient to satisfy the
understanding and cons cience, that his sister
had done something cupable or illegal,
an that this affected some provision of the will.
This heI utterly fail to do, and gave no proof
tending to that effect. The suggestion that the
will was made under misapprehension on the
part OF the testatriX that her son. the contestant
was indebted to her Tor money advanced by her
towards the purchase of his farm in North deld,
is OF little importance. The testatrix never had
q formal settlement OF accounts with the con-
testant. He had managed her estate for many
years, and had k' pit no account OF his mothers
income apart from his own; and although he
testifes, generally, that he bought his farm
with his own money, yet from the manner in
which his mether's business was transacted,
II Is not strange that she was under the I'M
preston tnat her money had been used in
the purchase OF the farm. We think that
the only intent manifested by the clause
in the will, dIscharging the contestant from
liability tor advances for the purchase of his
farm. was to put an end to doubt, and to pre-.
vent litigation on that subject after her death.
The other facts which the Surrogate deemed
sufficient to put Mrs. Tyler to proof to sustain
the will, we regard as insufficient to raise a
question as TO It's validity. The decree OF the
Surrogate is reversed, and the case Is remitte
with directions to admit the will to probate.
William M. Evalts and j. Buchanan Henry Of
counsel for appellant, Julia G. Tyler; GrenvIlle
I. Jacks and William Watson, of counsel Tor
respondent, Da vid l.. Gardner.-N Y. World.