The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-04-16
A LAWYERS LEGACY.
rHEycuNSOs wELu-CAsE DECIDE"
nY TEE SUPREME GaURT.
A FORTUNE FIGURED TO HON. the
s. BOCOCK.
Novel I.aw-Points Settled.

In the Supreme Court Of Appeals yester-
,r Judge Anderson delivered bis opinion, |
n which all the Judges concurred, in the
ome q hat celebrated case Of Riddeli ct ais.
Is. Johnson's executor ct al Several new
nd important law-points not heretofore
,sssrd uf,on BY this court were settled, anu
ne therefore give the opinion IN full:
Ia view of the importance OF this cause
he court has given to It's consideration the
most careful and earnest attention; ana II
we have erred ia our conclusions DO fault IS
attributable to the learned counsel on either
side. who have conducted the discussion
with scruputous fidelity TO theie respective
clicuts, and with great researca and dlstin'
gKshed ability.
II is not surprising that the mere an.
,,nncsn, cnt that the decedeE: had given the
hank Of his large estate to his attorney, VINO
ras the writer Of his will aud stranger 10
his blood. to the exclusion of bis a"iui
stindrcd. should have excited comment 10
,he country. And the fact that the writer OF
the will was an eminent me mber OF tue pro-
fcssion aud had filled various posts oil honor
and high distinction in the service OF DIS
country weuld naturally cause Pilnioi re-
elections in the public mind, and cspeclMiy
amongst the members Of profession when
is so closely connected with The admnistra'
ron Of Justice, and who in general have
been keenly sensitive, and justly so, to any
thing which might bring reproach or stain
upon their fair and honorable esc1tcheon.
By the civil law, if person wrote
will liz his own favor it was rendered VoIo.
/ am not prepared to say that such provi'
sion In our law would not be consonant WIN
pubkc policy and safeguard to pubic
morals, especially where the writer Oh the
will was the attorney Of the testator. MOI
that such q disposition of bis estate m'Sh'
not fairly he made by testator, ana that ne
might not justly regard his attorney h's oest
friend and the most worthy oWecC OF h's
bcnetaction, and bequeath his properly u
him free from all restraint and undue inhu'
ence but considering the relation OF cohu'
,6ence between the client ana DIS Attorney
and the capacity which venal anu unscLu.
puous attorney would have 10 aouse tuat
confidence, and considering the lnnrhi'y VI
HUMAN NATURE,
which requires from the best OF men inc
dailv pray err. b" lead us not into temptation,
and the relation of the legal profession 10
the pure and faithful administration OF tue
laws, and the importance of its occupying a
position which raises it above suSplcloD. IL
is argued with much force that an attorney
should be absolutely incapable Of taking a
beuefac,lon from his client by gift, inter
uquos, or by will.
On the other hand. it may be argued that
bv the law of England and America the teS-
ta,or has the right, US he ought to have, 20
bestow bis property on whom he Will. lie
has the right to select the objects of biz
bounty. That bis attorney may be the best
friend be has in the world, and the most
worthy object of hiS benctuction; and if he
has capacity to make will, and freely and
OF choice desires TO bequeath his estate TO
him, ne ought not to be deprived OF that
privilege. Whether this be just conclusion
as to what the law should be. Or whether il
is best that the rule Of the civil laws should
prevail, | thiuk the current Of decisions
shows that it has not been adopted to its full
extent rs rule, in England or America.
In England il has not. and is distinctly so
declared Il Williams on Executors. Amer,
from last London edition, page 81. And
the writer adds: "The act is not absolutely
void, even though the person making the
will in his own favor is the agent or attor.
ney of the testator but the suspicion
thereby is for obvious reasons greatly III.
creased" In Bilinghurst us. Vickers. l
Pull. 1914, it is held that the act is not &C.
tuully defeated, as it was by the civil law.
To the same effect are Parker Us. Oilatt, :
Phil. 1874 Barry Us. Butler, Curtis GsI;
Baker Us. Bot, 2 Moore. 7. &. O., 81 !;
Hltchius uS Wood, ibid $50, 43G. The same
is held in the American cases. A will
by client in favor OF an attorney Is
,t,t,, =, nf
thst ,fduciary relation does not annul the
act. tlWiIson Us. horan, 3 BIadf: r., IT,
TO tue .ame elects CriSpeil pS. DUBOIS, 1
Barb. sap. c. Rep, p. 356; Crimer Us.
Crumbaueh, 3 Maryland, 49l; Watcrson Is.
Watcrscu, Heads (Tennessec) Rep, p. l !;
Adair Us. Adair, SO Ga, 104 Ncus)n rs.
Nensou, 8 New York Court of Appeals dc.
cislons. $50; Goodacue & TAYLOR us. Smith.
l Law Rep. p $50. Ia GOTTA as. Coffin, 23
New YotE Rep, p. 9. Comstoch, {. j., said
" 1t is noti. rule or 4 principle of the law of
tcstaments that the craftsman OF a will can
not be an executor or take Il benefit under it,"
The counsel for appellants rely on Meeker
and Thornton, executors, Us. Perry and
wife & Miss. L., 245. and e ,rvin's adninls-
traitor rs. Williams ct al. a No. as MINI
tsining the RUE OF the ciyii law. Though
the reasoning OF the judges may tend in that
direction the decision in neither case goes to
thai extent. Tbey do not held that the will
IS absolutely void hut only that the relation
OF confidence raises prtnad sntle presump-
tion Gr
CNDEE,.SFLUENoE,
which, Sunless rebutteG the will eansot stand.
The Mississippi case turned npon an in
structiOn given by the court OF trEl TO the
jury in tie following 3GCds-to w.t. '"Ihat
the law watches with Jealousy transactions
between guardian and ward; and II ME aury
believe that Louisa Nqkinnie (the Ward)
made will i'm favor Of hsr guardian whilst
The SeIation Of guardian a1i ward sub,issed
he circumstances must demonstrate full de.
liberation on the part OF the ward, and abunG-
ant good faith on the part a the guardian. 1
Or they .ul,Ist find against the will" The ap /.
Deate coart held that there was no error in
he instruction.
The Missouri case also turned upon an in.
,tructiop, which, reehing all the facts in The
case, asked the court to declare That "the
arising frGm such facts is that
he alleged will vas procured by the undue
pfiIence of j. 7. Wilsm1, and that PEE
sumption can only be repeiied by satisfac.
DRY proof tbat no Eudue ipfl lencc was used
o procure the same" The appellate court
leld that under The eireunS taEees in which
he will was made it was
PREsuAPrlvELV INVALID,
md the burden of proving Its validity rested !
lpon those who sought to derive an /
dvantage under it. The instruction,
herefore, which was refused By the
curt should have been given. 1t is cltar
hat in neitrer OF the foregoing cases was It
eld that on the ground of the relation OF
onndence between the testator and the leg
tee the viii was absolutely void. but oulg