St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-09-11
WILLED ALL TO HIS WIFE
It'd Excluded Other Members Of his
Family.
SUPREME COURT CASES.
Numerous Interests Involved in Decis-
ions Made by Their
Ho1ors.


without being married, but in 1876 he
married, and his wife's age at the time
was seven and twenty. January, 1886,
the will of the late colonel was present
ed for probate in the court of Hennepin
county. and a sister of the deceased,
Mrs. Matilda j. Stockton, and her hus-
band, appeared as contestants. The
probate court having allowed the will,
the contestants appealed to the district
court, where, after a trial before jury,
the allowance and order of the probate
court was affirmed. From this judg-
ment the contestants appealed to the
supreme court, and Judge Gilfillan filed
his decision in the case yesterday. The
suit is Matilda j. Stockton ct al. VS..
George Thorn ct al.
The facts of the case are: Col. Nelson
during his lifetime acquired consider
able property, consisting mainly of real
estate in Minneapolis and st. Paul. He
had always been very fond of his sister,
Mrs. Stockton, and her husband and
children.
About year and half before his
death
HE EXECUTED TWO WILLS.
In one, dated June II, 1884, he be-
oueathed One-half of his real and per-
Sonal property to his wife and the other
half to Mrs. Stockton and her issue.
The will gave as the reason for so dis
posing of his property that his wife
would be amply provided with pecuni-
airy means from another source, while
his sister, with her large family, was in
need of the help which he purposed
extending to her. He executed an
other will at the house of Mrs.
Stockton, in Kentucky, Dec.
z, 1885, about twenty-five days
before he died. This will was drawn
with his own hand, and by it he devised
to his wife building in Minneapolis
worth about $4,000, and directed the
remainder of his property in MinneapO-
lis and St. Paul to Ice sold and the pro-
ceeds to be equally divided between his
wife and Mrs. Stockton. The will in
contest was executed at ThOmaSville,
Ca, Dec. %. 1855, the day before his
death. and it leaves his entire property
to his wife. He lad been very sick of
pleurO-pneumonia continuously since
Dec. 20. The will was executed at 6 or
$3.50 in the evening, and about the
next morning he died. The theory
urged by the contestants was that prior
to his illness his wife had acquired a
controlling
INFLUENCE OVER HIM;
that his illness weakened his mind and
power of will to such an extent that
she, being in constant and almost eX-
elusive attendance on him, took advan-
tage Of her influence over him and of
mis- weakness, physical and mental, to
eXtOrt from him the execution of will
such as he would not otherwise have
made. Judge Gilfllan, in his review of
the case, remarked that there was moth
-, ..o Ari ,,Tlf To ho% live
Nelson ever had any power 10 influence
her husband beyond what naturally and
rightfully belonged to a wife; that his
sickness weakened in any way his mind
and power of will, there was no evil
dence except that of expert physicians,
who did not see him, but who testified
that usually the disease of which
he died would have such effect on the
brain and mind as to make the patient
incapable of making will. But as
against the amply, direct and positive
evidence of the attending physician and
all those who saw and conVerSed with
the teStatOr during bis illness, and at
the time of executing the will, to the
effect that his mind was in no way i'm
paired, the testimony of the experts
was entitled to very little thought. The
case was utterly barren of evidence
tending to prove that Mrs. Nelson ever
made an effort or attempt to influence
the testat0r in dispOSing of his property;
and Judge Gilfillan's decision is:
The fact that a person who made
two wills dividing his property between
his wife and sister. within few days of
making the second, and after several
days of very severe illness, of which he
died in few hours, made another will
reVOking those made before, and leaV-
ing all his property to his wife (no rea-
son being apparent for the change in
the disposition of his property, is not,
in the absence of any other evidence
of undue influence, sufficient to require
the issue of undue influence on the part
of the wife to be submitted to the jury.
The question whether a change in a
teStatOr'S lifelong purpose to provide
for q sister. occurring upon his death
bed, and without apparent motive or
reason, and unexplained, indicates any
change in his intellect, is not one for the
opinions OF experts. An exception to
the charge of the trial court held too
general. Judgment affirmed"
The appeal of Tennis Slingerland VS..
Tennis s. Slingerland was decided yes
terGay. The parties stand as father
and son in relation to each other. and
Judge Gilfllan's syllabus is: "There
were pending in the district court five
different actions or proceedings in
which this plaintiff and defendant
were practically the parties opposed in
interest, this plaintiff being plaintiff in
four of them. two of them being against
this defendant. and the other two being
defended because of his interest, and
this defendant being plaintiff in the
fifth, which was defended because of
the plaintiff making claim to the money
claimed in it. They were all on the
calendar of the court for trial at the
March term, 1856, and on the 9Th of
March, one of them, the most important
of the five, was on trial, VIXEN this de-
PENDANT proposed orally to this plaintiff
that if he would dismiss the actions so
brought by him, and consent that the
money involved in the other should
be paid to this defendant and
the proceedings discontinued, he, this
defendant. MONTGOMERY to him a GER
tain farm, and the personal property
belonging to it, on the day when he,
this plaintiff, should be married to a
young lady named. Plaintiff accepted
the proposition, and pursuant to it, dis
missed the four actions, and consented
that the money involved in the other
should be paid, and it was thereupon
paid to this defendant and the proceed
ingS discontinued. Plaintiff married
the young lady named, but when, there
dllcI, lie uelnduucu tll6 conveyance
agreed upon, the defendant refused to
make it. The plaintiff could not be re-
stored in respect to the actions and pro-
ceedingS to the position he was in at the
time of making the oral agreement, nor
could any action for damages he might
bring put him III as good a position.
Held that the performance by plaintiff
was sufficient part performance to
take the agreement out of the statute of
frauds. Order reversed and new trial
ordered.