Belding banner. (Belding, Mich.) 1889-1918, 1906-12-27
GREENOP WILL
WAS SUSTAINED
Judge Webster Gives His Opin-
ion I'm The Case.
Thinks Tes tator was of sound Mind
and Knew His Relationship
Points he Decided

Probate Judge. Montgomery Webster
delivered his opinion on the contest of the
will Of the late John Greenop Of Orleans
last week. The principal points embod-
led in his opinion are as follows:
is is unnecessary to comment on the
vicious effects Of setting aside wills for
any but the soundest reasons, nor to as
sert the firm action necessary when con-
yinced Of the presence of mental incom-
potency or undue influence at the time of
execution.
'As to the question of mental incompe-
tency, OF insane deluson, | find that John
Greenop. both at the time of making the
will and at the time of executing the codi-
Gil was Of sufficient mind to clearly dis
Germ The nature and extent Of property,
the objects of his bounty and the scope
and provisions of this particular will.
Further than this, am satisfied he knew
what the relationship between himself and
Mary Ann Stlllson; that this knowledge
remained his to the moment Of his death;
blob HO SullCI CO utlOOi llO lilootlC 6SiholOil
as to such relationship. and whatever may
have been his reason for acknowledging
her at times as his daughter and denying
her at others. such action is not inconsis-
tant with rational course of conduct
Whether he thereby and in dslnherting
her. commitie ed great wrong it is outside
the province of this court to say, provided
the Court is fully convinced he acted with
full knowledge of what he was doing
The Court finds the evidence insuffi-
cient to hold the will as anything but the
expression by John Greenp Of his own de-
sires as to how his property should de-
scend and be distributed upon his death
He dieta ed the provisions Of the will; his
mind governed its construction as fully as
it had governed the amassing of his for
tune OF this have not the slightest
doubt.
Referring to the case Of Waters VS..
Reed, l29 Michigan, the court does not
. regard the case in point We need 60 no
further into the relationship of Minnie
Greenop and John Greenop than to say
that she was his wife at the time of the
execution of The will and at at the time Of
his death; that the children mentioned as
such in the will are his children and are
h, irs at law of John Greenop. This de-
clson does not necessitate determination
Of the relationship between Mary Ann
Stillson and deceased. After carefully
scrutinizing the testimony and arguments
from the standpoint of her being his
daughter, yet do not find myself war
ranted in deciding that she was cut off
from further provision in this will because
of the mental incomptency Of John Green
op. or the undue influence exerted by Mn
ME Greenop and her son.
On the question of undue influence, the
court reviews the evidence and finds the
same insufficient for opinion affirming the
position of contestant. The facts and cir
cumstances surrounding John Greenop-
his character and mental condition as
shown by the evldence-are not such as
will form basis for the necessary infer
ence of undue influence In the testimony
produced regarding the making Of this in
strument there are not to be found, to use
the phraseoogy of Chief Justice Shaw.
the traces of those artful, false and re-