Case Name: In Re FALING WILL. STRONG et al. v. SMITH et al.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1922-06-27
Citations: 105 Or. 365
Docket Number: 
Parties: In Re FALING WILL. STRONG et al. v. SMITH et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 105
Pages: 365–452

Head Matter:
Argued January 18,
reversed and decree entered June 27,
rehearing denied October 10, 1922.
In Re FALING WILL. STRONG et al. v. SMITH et al.
(208 Pac. 715.)
Appeal and Error — Notice Need not be Served on Adverse Party Who Did not Appear.
1. Under Section 550, Or. L., requiring notice of appeal not taken at the time of the decree to be served on such adverse parties as have appeared, it is not necessary to serve a notice of appeal on adverse parties who were served with citation in proceedings to contest a will, but who did not file an answer or give written notice of appearance, though they did appear as witnesses.
Appeal and Error — Beneficiary Under Both Wills Held not Adverse Party to Contestants of Later Will.
2. Where testatrix had executed two wills, the first of which was admittedly valid if it was not revoked by the second, a beneficiary under both wills who was made a party to proceedings to contest the later will and filed an appearance therein, and who would receive a larger share of the estate under the earlier will than under the later, and was represented on the appeal by counsel in opposition to the later will, was not a party adverse to the contestants of the later will on whom notice of the appeal must be served to give the court jurisdiction over the appeal.
Wills — Proponents have Burden of Proving Testamentary Capacity.
3. The proponents have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the testimony testamentary capacity of testatrix at the time of the execution of the will offered by them.
Wills — Knowledge of Affairs and Objects of Bounty is Test of Mental Capacity.
4. The rule in regard to testamentary capacity is that, if a testator at the time he executed his will understood the business in which he was engaged and had a knowledge of his property and the way he wished to dispose of it among'-thosc entitled to his bounty, he possessed sufficient testamentary capacity notwithstanding old age, debility, or extreme distress.
Wills — Clear and Convincing Proof is Necessary to Show Insane Testatrix had Lucid Interval When Will was Executed.
5. Where habitual insanity on the part of the testatrix is proved, the fact that the will was executed during a lucid interval can be established only by clear and convincing proof, with respect to which the burden is on proponents.
4. As to what constitutes capacity or incapacity to make a will, see notes in 27 L. E. A. (N. S.) 2, and L. E. A. 1915A, 444.
Wills — Marked Change in Habits is Evidence of Mental Unsoundness.
6. A marked change in a person’s habits and thoughts is evidence of mental unsoundness.
Wills — Testamentary Capacity Determined from Circumstances of Each Case,
7. There is no particular degree of mental acumen to serve as a standard for testamentary capacity, but each ease must be decided upon its own facts and circumstances.
Evidence — Attesting Witnesses and Intimate Acquaintances can Give Opinion as to Sanity and Reasons Therefor.
8. Under Section 727, Or. L., a subscribing witness to a will can testify as to his opinion respecting mental capacity of testatrix, and in addition witnesses who are intimate acquaintances of testatrix could properly express their opinion as to her sanity and give their reasons for it.
Evidence — Opinions df Witnesses as to Capacity are not Conclusive.
9. It is for the court to determine from the evidence whether testatrix possessed testamentary capacity, and the facts and circumstances as to her mental state have most weight in passing upon the question; the court may be aided, but not controlled, by the opinion of witnesses, especially expert witnesses.
Wills — Preparation and Execution in Presence of Interested Persons Only Imposes Greater Burden on Proponents.
10. Where the will was prepared by one of the chief beneficiaries and was executed by testatrix in the presence only of those who were beneficiaries, or who were related to beneficiaries, proponents must establish the testamentary act with greater particularity than would be required where the will is prepared by and executed in the presence of disinterested persons.
Wills — Evidence Held to Show Testamentary Incapacity at Time of Execution of Last Will.
11. In proceedings to contest a will, where it was conceded by all parties that testatrix was competent to execute a prior will four years before the will in controversy was executed, evidence that within the year preceding the execution of the last will she became unable to attend to any business and required the constant attention of nurses, who treated her as if she were a child, and that such condition increased and continued until her death, two years later, held to show that testatrix was incompetent mentally to execute the last will, notwithstanding testimony by her physician that she was competent.
8. Competency of subscribing witnesses and effect of their testi mony opposing or supporting a will, see note in 77 Am. St. Rep. 459.
11. Comparative weight of testimony by physician and layman on question of testamentary capacity, see note in Ann. Cas. 1914D, 343.
From Multnomah: George W. Stapleton, Judge.
In Banc.
This is a contest to determine whether a will dated August 26, 1915, is the last will and testament of Xarifa J. Faling, or whether a will dated August 25, 1911, together with six codicils thereto, is the last will and testament of Xarifa J. Faling. The proceeding was instituted by W. Tyler Smith on August 23, 1917, as the sole next of kin of Xarifa J. Faling, deceased. During the proceedings the proponents offered evidence as to the due execution of the will made by Mrs. Xarifa J. Faling on August 25, 1911, together with six codicils thereto. After the introduction of this proof, on July 2, 1918, an amended petition was filed alleging in substance that the will of August 25, 1911, together with the codicils thereto was the last will and testament of Xarifa J. Faling deceased, and also alleging that two bequests therein, one to Charles Jensen and wife and the other to Theodore Jensen and wife each in the sum of $2,000 had been assigned to petitioner who claimed a right by reason of the assignment. Thereafter a petition was filed by Frances Gray and others, beneficiaries under the will of 1911, and codicils, and issues were duly joined thereon. It was stipulated that all- the testimony theretofore taken should be considered under the amended petition and the separate contest.
Mrs. Xarifa J. Faling died on July 5, 1917, and the will of August 26, 1915, was probated in common form on July 9, 1917. After a large amount of testimony was taken the judge of the County Court of Multnomah County on May 24, 1919, entered an order sustaining the will of August 26, 1915, and dismissed the contestants’ petitions. Thereafter an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, where a decree was rendered on June 4, 1920, affirming the decree of the county court sustaining the will of August 26, 1915, from which decree the contestants appeal to this court.
The will of August 26, 1915, reads as follows:
“In the Name of God — Amen.
“Know all men, that I, Xarifa J. Paling, of Portland, in the State of Oregon, of the age of 68 years, being of sound and disposing mind and memory at this time and not acting under duress, menace, fraud or undue influence of any person whomsoever, do make, publish and declare this my Last Will and' Testament in manner and form following, to wit:
“First. It is my will, and I do order, that all my just debts and funeral expenses be duly paid and satisfied as soon as conveniently can be done after my decease.
“Second. I give and bequeath unto each, the sum of Three Thousand Dollars, to the Beaverton Childrens Home, St. Agnes Baby Home, Childrens Home at Corbett and Gains Street, Visiting Nurses Association, Mann Old Peoples Home 32d and Sandy Road, William E. Metzger, Carl Schieck, Catherine Becker, Etna B. Chattin.
“Third. In lieu of the present Court arrangements, I bequeath my so called Brother, if he be living at my death, the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars, otherwise this bequest to remain a part of my estate.
“Fourth. To all others claiming relationship, or makeing demands, or contestants of this my Last Will, I bequeath the sum of one Dollar.
“Fifth. After the above bequests have been paid, I give and bequeath the balance of my entire estate, both Real and Personal, equal to both C. L. Mead and Thos. N. Strong, long time friends.
“And, Lastly, I nominate, constitute and appoint Thos. N. Strong and C. L. Mead, without the requirement of Bonds, for the fulfillment of my directions herein stated, to he the executors of this my Last Will, hereby revoking all other Wills, Legacies and Bequests by me heretofore made, and declaring this, and no other, to be my Last Will and Testament.
“In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, this Twenty-sixth day of August, in the year of our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifteen, 1915.
“(Signed) Xabiea J. Faling. (Seal)
“The above instrument was at the date thereof signed, sealed, published and declared, by the said Xarifa J. Faling, as and for her Last Will and Testament, in the presence of us, who, at her request and in our presence, and in the presence of each other, have subscribed our names as witnesses thereto.
“Lydia A. Metzger,
“Residing at Portland, Ore.
“Chas. E. Moreland,
“Residing at Portland, Ore.”
The testimony shows that on or about August 25, 1911, at Portland, Oregon, Xarifa J. Faling made, executed, published and declared a certain instrument in writing to be her last will and testament, which instrument was executed by her in the presence of E. W. Creighton and Katherine O’Neil, each being competent witnesses thereto over the age of twenty-one years, who, at the request of said testatrix, subscribed their names respectively to the will in the presence of the testatrix and in the presence of each other; and that by this last will and testament the following bequests were made:
1. Debts paid.
2. Patton Home, $2,000.
3. Oregon Humane Society, $3,000.
4. Charles Jensen and wife, $2,000.
5. Theodore Jensen and wife, $2,000.
6. Lena Doran, $1,000.
7. Frances Gray, $1,000.
8. Sarah Gray Warnecke, $1,000.
In case of her death this goes to her daughter, Harriet Gray Warnecke.
9. Alice Meredith Gray, $1,000.
10. Thomas Gray, $1,000.
11. Cornelius Barrett, $30 per month.
12. Salvation Army, $1,000.
13. Portland Library, $1,000.
14. Good Samaritan Hospital, $2,000.
15. The Home, West Half of Lots 7 and 8, Block 63.
16. August Warnecke, all of the rest of lands and real estate. ,
17. To Ben Selling in trust for Jewish Hospital, $5,000.
18. William E. Metzger, $6,500.
19. All of balance of property to the Home.
20. In case any legatee named die the legacy reverts to general estate.
21. Thomas N. Strong, executor.
Thereafter on the dates hereinafter mentioned, as shown by the testimony, Xarifa J. Ealing, made, executed, published and declared six codicils to the will of August 25, 1911, each in the presence of two competent witnesses and in due form, which are in substance as follows:
Codicil No. 1, October 16, 1911.
In the case of death of Thomas N. Strong, Addison A. Lindsley and William E. Metzger to be execixfcoirs
Codicil No. 2, January 25, 1912.
William N. Gatens, William E. Metzger and Addison A. Lindsley appointed executors.
Ada E. Mortag given $1,000 and Jessie Mortag $1,000.
Codicil No. 3, August 2, 1912. ■
William E. Metzger, $10,000 instead of $6,500. Codicil No. 4, October 4, 1912.
William E. Metzger and Lot Q. Swetland appointed 6X6Cntors
Codicil No. 5, September 30, 1913.
William N. Gatens and Lot Q. Swetland appointed executors.
Codicil No. 6, June 6, 1914.
As a codicil to my foregoing last will and testament, 1st, I hereby revoke the appointment of executors heretofore made in said will and the codicils thereto and appoint in this codicil A. L. Mills of the city of Portland, Oregon, as the sole executor of my last will and testament and request and direct that he be not required to give bonds.
2nd. I hereby bequeath and give Lot Q. Swetland the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000).
3rd. I hereby revoke the former bequests by me made to William E. Metzger and in place thereof I give and bequeath to William E. Metzger the sum of $5,000. In every other respect ratifying and confirming my said former Will and all the Codicils thereto except as herein stated.
When the will of August 25, 1911, and the codicils thereto were executed, published and declared as the last will and testament or codicils thereto of Xarifa J. Faling she was of sound and disposing mind and memory, was competent and was not acting under duress, menace, coercion, fraud, or undue influence of any person whomsoever. The will and codicil were never revoked by Xarifa J. Faling unless there was a revocation contained within the will of August 26, 1915. A short time after August 26, 1915, the will of August 25, 1911, and the codicils thereto were destroyed. The substance thereof was reproduced from the stenographer’s notes of an abstract of the will and codicils prepared by Mr. Thomas N. Strong who carefully drew and superintended the execution of the will of 1911, and all or nearly all of the codicils thereto.
As shown by the registry of births Xarifa J. Faling was born on August 16, 1839, in. Abergavenny, Mon mouth County, England. She was abandoned by her father in Peru in the late 1840’s. She was given by her mother to a family named Eobinson, who took her with them to the eastern states, where she remained until she was about twenty-four years old. In a deposition in one of the cases (Barrett v. Barrett, 5 Or. 411; Barrett v. Failing, 8 Or. 152), Mrs. Faling stated that she did not know her age. After the abandonment of the family the father, Charles Barrett, came to San Francisco in the 1850’s. He was followed by Mrs. Barrett. Differences arose between them and they were divorced in 1870, Mrs. Barrett remaining for a time in California and Mr. Barrett settling in Portland, Oregon. At that time the family consisted of the father, Charles Barrett; the mother, Mary E. Barrett; three sons, Charles, Cornelius and Arthur; and one daughter, Xarifa Jane, who are all now deceased. Charles accompanied his father to Portland where the elder Barrett with his son Charles opened a bookstore, which for some time was the chief book and stationery store of the city and was located at Front and Washington Streets. Both men were of intemperate habits. Xarifa Jane Barrett arrived in Portland in 1863, and assumed the burden of conducting the household and the store. In the divorce proceedings it appears that the family divided into two contesting groups, the father, Charles Barrett, and his son Charles and daughter Xarifa Jane being opposed to the mother and the two sons Arthur and Cornelius. In his answer filed in the divorce proceedings the father, Charles Barrett, denied the paternity of Arthur and Cornelius. Charles Barrett, the father, purchased the lot on the southeast corner of the intersection of Fifth and Washington Streets in the- City of Portland. This property was conveyed to the daughter, Xarifa Jane Barrett, in 1868. In December, 1870, Mrs. Barrett instituted a suit in Multnomah County for the collection of an alimony judgment obtained in San Francisco. This suit was contested and appealed to this court: Barrett v. Barrett, 5 Or. 411. The record there shows that "William Strong, father of Thomas N. Strong, appeared as attorney for the defendants, Charles Barrett and Xarifa Jane Faling, then Xarifa Jane Barrett. Thereafter there was considerable litigation between Mrs. Faling and one of the opposing family faction. Charles Barrett, the father, died November 1, 1873. In 1878, William Strong and Sons, Thomas N. Strong and Fred R. Strong, appeared for Mrs. Faling in a suit against her by her mother involving the bookstore: Barrett v. Failing, 8 Or. 152. In 1880, there was a suit by Mary E. Barrett against Xarifa Jane Faling in the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon where William Strong appeared as attorney for Mrs. Faling. This case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States where Mrs. Faling was represented by Hon. J. N. Dolph, then United States Senator from Oregon: See Barrett v. Failing, 111 U. S. 523 (28 L. Ed. 505, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 598). Thomas N. Strong represented Mrs. Faling either individually or in conjunction with other attorneys in several proceedings brought by Mrs. Barrett and Cornelius jointly and by Cornelius individually against Mrs. Faling in the County and Circuit Courts of the State of Oregon.
Some time in the early 70’s Xarifa Jane Barrett married Charles D. Faling. He was a man of some ability with an engaging personality, but with a belief in morals founded upon the double standard. In 1887, Ms relations with two different women became so flagrant that he was discovered in an attempt to flee from the state with one of the women to Buenos Aires, absconding with about $25,000 of the property of Mrs. Faling. The outraged wife repaired to San Francisco and discovering him in company with one of the women killed him. Thomas N. Strong appeared in San Francisco and assisted in the murder trial, the case of People v. Xarifa J. Faling. Upon the first trial the jury disagreed. Upon the second Mrs. Faling was acquitted upon the plea of temporary insanity. Mrs. Faling when arrested in San Francisco for the killing of Charles D. Faling was incarcerated in what was then known as the old city hall on the corner of Washington and Kearney Streets. At that time one Patrick Crowley was chief of police of San Francisco. This prison was situated on the edge of Chinatown in a dilapidated building surrounded by old structures of pioneer days. It was rat infested.
After Mrs. Faling returned to Portland from a trip to Europe she was engaged in a series of litig’ation with Cress Brothers and others. At that time Cornelius Barrett through various attorneys instituted proceedings in the County Court to compel Mrs. Faling to support him as a brother. In these cases Thomas N. Strong appeared as attorney for Mrs. Faling. The latter litigation resulted in a judgment awarding to Cornelius Barrett the sum of $30 a month. After returning to Portland in the early 90’s Mrs. Faling and her daughter Lilly lived at various boarding-houses and hotels. For several years prior to the fall of 1914, Mrs. Faling lived at the Sargent Hotel which was formerly the Brown. In January, 1900, Lilly Faling was married to Carl Schieck. The issue of their marriage was a boy born in 1901. In May, 1903, Lilly Faling Schieck died. During their married life Mrs. Faling assisted them to the extent of nearly $3,000. After the death of her daughter Mrs. Faling had her grandson with her in Portland until he died in 1905. Mrs. Faling and Carl Schieck carried on a correspondence until 1906, when Mrs. Faling wrote him a kindly letter which he never answered. Schieck remarried about this time and never called afterwards to see Mrs. Faling, although he was in the City of Portland many times. He states that he entered a different world as to family affairs.
During Mrs. Faling’s stay in Portland by thrifty management of the bookstore, the operation of a rooming-house on the present site of the Swetland building and great care of her property she accumulated a fortune of approximately $600,000. Mrs. Faling while at the Sargent Hotel became acquainted with Mrs. Clara H. Waldo, widow of the late Judge John B. Waldo who had lived at the Sargent Hotel prior to his death. Mrs. Faling and Mrs. Waldo were good friends. Mrs. Faling discussed her property and her future intentions with Mrs. Waldo. In 1910, Mrs. Waldo was regent of Oregon Agricultural College at Corvallis, was interested in a young man living on her farm near Salem named Kaiser and arranged to pay the expenses of this boy through College. She informed Mrs. Faling of this. At that time there was employed in the Sargent Hotel, as an elevator boy, a young man named William E. Metzger. Mrs. Faling ascertained that this young man had been compelled to give up his schooling to assist his mother. She made him small presents of money. He left the hotel for employment elsewhere. On one of his visits at the Sargent Hotel Mrs. Faling broached the matter of having him complete his education at some college at her expense, to which he acquiesced after consultation with his people. In September of that year Mrs. Waldo and Mrs. Faling went to Corvallis with the two boys and installed them in the college. From that time until into 1912, a correspondence was carried on between Mrs. Faling and William E. Metzger. She paid all of his expenses and apparently was desirous of adopting him. Before young Metzger had completed his four year course at Oregon Agricultural College, on St. Valentine’s Day, 1913, without the advice of, or consultation with, Mrs. Faling he married a young lady who was then attending the same college. This was a great disappointment to Mrs. Faling who was very anxious for Metzger to complete his college course.
Mrs. Faling made a number of wills which were drawn by Thomas N. Strong. In none of her wills prior to August 26, 1915, was either C. Lewis Mead or Thomas N. Strong made a beneficiary.
Reversed and Decree Entered. Rehearing Denied.
For appellants there was a brief over the names of Mr. Coy Burnett, Mr. Guy C. H. Corliss, Mr. E. E. Heekbert and Mr. R. E. Sewell, with oral arguments by Mr. Burnett and Mr. Corliss.
For respondents there was a brief over the names of Mr. John F. Logan, Mr. G. Henri Labbe and Mr. James G. Wilson, with an oral argument by Mr. Logan.

Opinion:
BEAN, J.
As a preliminary question it is submitted in the brief of proponents and respondents that this court has no jurisdiction of this proceeding for the reason that all parties adverse to the appellants appearing in the lower court have not been served with a notice of appeal, such parties being the old People's Home of Portland, the Visiting Nurses Association, Etna B. Chattin and William E. Metzger, who were each served with a citation, and The Home, which was served with a citation and also filed an answer suggesting that the validity of the will of 1915 be first determined before the hearing of the petition for the probate of the 1911 will. The above-named parties, except The Home, did not answer or appear in the trial of these proceedings, except that Etna B. Chattin and William E. Metzger were witnesses for proponents. Section 550, Or. L., requires that:
"If the appeal is not taken at the time the decision, order, judgment or decree is rendered or given, then the party desiring to appeal may cause a notice, signed by himself or attorney, to be served on such adverse party or parties as have appeared in the action or suit, or upon his or their attorney
The citation served upon the parties answers the purpose of a summons, and unless such parties file an answer or give written notice of appearance they are not entitled to service of notice of further proceedings in the action, or to notice of appeal: See Section 542, Or. L.: Belknap v. Charlton, 25 Or. 41 (34 Pac. 758).
As stated, The Home appeared in the contest by filing an answer. It is not an adverse party in this proceeding and would not be aggrieved by a decision of this court setting aside the probate of the will of 1915, and establishing the validity of the will of 1911. It is shown by the record that under the will of 1911, The Home is given a vastly larger share of the estate than under the will of 1915. The record further dis closes that The Home filed a petition in this court duly verified showing that this charitable institution "has the most vital interest in the contest of the probate of said will," and praying that it might appear in this court upon appeal by its attorney Hon. Gruy C. H. Corliss, and file a brief herein and make oral argument on behalf of The Home. Judge Corliss appeared in this court with counsel for contestants at the time of hearing argument. The Home therefore is far from being an adverse party on this appeal: See Appeal of Buckingham, 57 Conn. 544 (18 Atl. 256); Smith v. Chaney, 93 Me. 214 (44 Atl. 897); McDonald v. McDonald, 142 Ind. 55 (41 N. E. 336); In re Hunt's Will, 122 Wis. 460 (100 N. W. 874). No notice to dismiss the appeal was filed by respondents. The record shows that this court has jurisdiction of this proceeding upon this- appeal.