The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-01-12
Supreme Court Decisions.

Chief Justice Ludeng and Associates Taaferro,
Howell and Howe. Absent, Associate Justice
wyley. OLA ENtI ~ y
After reading the minutes the clerk Colonel
Deane, announced as the decision of the court
that no new cases would be called or fixed until
the country cases would be disposed of, which
would be called on the fourth Monday OF this
month, and fixed for trial, the cases already
called and fixed being sufficient to occupy the
time of the court up to that date. The following
are the decisions delivered yesterday: ~
BY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HOWE.
No. lSes-Erastus F. Chandler ct al. appellees,
VS.. Anthony Barrett, executor, appellant. For
defendant and appellant, Alex. T. Steele and NJ.
A.. Dooley, and for the plaintiffs and appellees.
Belden, Fusier, A. p. Boyd and NJ. c.. Dunn.
Appeal from the Second District Court of New
Orleans.
The plaintiffs in this case allege that they TO.
gether with minor brother and minor sister, are
the sole heirs of Mrs. Christina Chandler, their
fathers sister, who died in New Orleans on the
I'd of August, 1866 that on the Gath day of July
1866, the deceased executed an instrument called
and known as her last will and testament, before
A. Hero, Jr., notary, by which she bequesthed all
her property to the defendant, Barrett, constitut
ing him universal legatee and sole executor that
the will has been admitted to probate upon sppl
cation Of the defendant, but that it is null and
void for the reasons that at the time of making the
will, and for many years prior thereto, the tesla
LrlA was LOUDLY OlsQuallQeQ and incapable OF max
ing will, snd r'sofUr other reasons which having
been abandoned by plaintiffs, il is unnecessary TO
discuss. They pray that the will may be annulled
and avoided and that the plaintiff with their minor
brother and sister, may be adjudged to be entitled
| relief. TI
The defendant pleads the general denial, spe-
cially denies the relationship of plaintiffs father,
AYERS that the testatrlx, "Christina Chandler, at
the age of seventy years, lived alone, uncared for
and neglected by the plaintiffs, who lived very
har 0wd eIaee 81 H. 81.
she made her will, and until her DEATH exhibited
more than ordinary proof of sanity and capacity
! to do business"
There was judgment for plaintiffs, and the de-
PENDANT has appealed.
The only question in the case, in the view we
have taken OF it, is whether Christina Chandler,
On the Gath day OF July, 1866, had testamentary
capacity, or whether, on the contrary she was
| intestable by reason of unsound mind. The
question, We must say, is not very clearly pre-
| sented by the pleadings, but it seems from
the whole record to have been the main
point at issue. And here we may re-
mark that while il is true, as stated
by this court in ALBERT Vs. ALBERT, An, LOG, and
| urged by plaintiffs at bar, that testsments are
| more easily avoided than contracts on the ground
Of unsouDdness Of mind, yet this distinction aD-
plies to such matters as those of notoriety and in
terciction, and not TO the amount of intellect re-
| CURED in testator So far as the latter is con-
cerned, a will nay well be made by any mind which
| has the soundness and strength necessary to en-
dure the conflict involved in the making of bar.
gain. 1t would be unreasonable to require that a
testator should have more mental vigor and a more
lucid memory than a person who makes con-
| tract. See Merlin Repertoire, vol. Is, D. $50.
| Stevens vs.. Van Ceve, WASH, G. C. R., D. 267.
| Converse vs.. Converse, a Vermont, les.
II appears from the evidence that Christina
Chandler resided in Missouri in 1925; that her
husband died in that year that soon after his
| death she became the mother of q son. Thomas
w. Chandler that In 1885 she removed to Vicks-
burg, where she remained TIL about 1850; that
LIZ A. -. n-l-. -
with her up to the time of his death in April,
| 1865, and that she survived him about sixteen
months, managing his succession, of which she
was sole heir. and living alone in the same house
on Canal street, where she had lived for sometime
| before. In considering the question of her al
| legged unsoundness Of mind at the time her will
was made, there are some elementary principles
which may guide us to just conclusion That
Romace law " says Coin Delisle donations ct
| TestameDs p. S2,l " furnish rules on this point
which still deserve to be followed. If the testa-
| ment present but series of wise and judicious
dispositions, il s for the heirs who attack it to
prove uDsoundness of mind the date Of the testa
ment- II IL contain dispositions such as would |
cause insanity to be presumed, although suscep-
tible OF being justified BY peculiar circumstances,
il is for the legatee TO prove by witnesses the
sanity Of the testament. But if by facts occurring
near the time Of the date Of the testament and
preceding and following it. the heirs have proved
an hdbHudl state Of insanity, we are constrained
TO think that then and Notwithstanding the wisdom
of the act, the legatee should be held to prove
the existence Of soundness of mind during the in
termediate time. If Ihoweverl the acts of insanity
were rare and occurred at periods distant from
each other and from the date of the testament,
the testament would sustain itself, and would be
presumed 70 have been made in q lucid interval,
at least II the act tcdS not destitute of good sense
and betrayed no sanity"
THE presumption" says Foulier, sis always in
favor OF the act. Insanity is never presumed.
The advanced age of the donor. the forgetfulness
Of bis family the largeness Of the legacy, the low
rank Of the legatee, will not Of themselves suffice
TO decide that the testator is not of sound mind"
DrOit, Civil. VOL 8, p. Al. See also Msrcsde, vol.
S,p, 4OS; Duranton, vol. s, p. l67.
" The presumption OF sanity does not cease"
says Tropleng, because the testator has expe-
rienced some transitory intellectual arrangement
at time anterior to the testament" Donations
ct Testamens, vol. 2. p. Sc. And the same writer
animadverts with characteristic energy upon the
tendency he has observed to transform "morbid
susceptibility, an ephemera excessive excitement,
asuperfcial trouble, into one of those profound |
alterations which destroy the reason"
The English law seems to be the same upon |
these points. In the case of Chambers va. the |
Queens Proctor q Curtiss, AIS, cited by Ray D. |
272, and Jsrman on Wills, Vol. l, D. ~ The de.
ceased was an attorney, who made his win on the |
18th November, 1885, and committed suicide the |
next day. He labored under singular delusons |
having no foundation in truth, on the three days
next preceding the day on which the will was /
executed among others, that the benches of the /
Temple were about to disbar him on &C. /
count OF an imaginary trivial fault he bad prscticed
on them and that in consequence thereof he was
lost man, and must be got out of the country. |
II appeared that decisions equally gross pos
sessed his mind In 1888. But the court (see Her. |
bert Jenner) said that the first point to be con-
sidered was whether habitual insanity had been /
proved. " because it is admitted that where habi-
tual insanity does not exist the proof of actual in
sanity at he time the will was madel must come
from those who impeach the act The court,
therefore, must look for proof of habitual insanity
or insane delusion from those who oppose this
will ~ there hQinO avidonna NJ i'm
at the moment the will was made The court was
Of opinion that no habitual insanity had been
proved, end tho will therefore sustained. I
See. also, Fullock VS.. Allison, Hazard, 527.
In the common law States of our own country
the same general rules have been laid down. 1
Clarke VS.. Fisher, l Paige. III; jackson vs.. Van
Deussen. johnson, IA; HALEY vs.. Webster, 81
Maine. 46l. Turning to the evidence in the record,
We find the principal acts of folly relied upon By
plaintiffs to be that about the year 1850 or 1851
the testatrix, Christina Chandler, ran up on the