Opinion ID: 1365332
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Instruction as to continuity of purpose.

Text: The codicil of 1951 confirms the will of 1944, with some minor exceptions. These exceptions are logical. For instance, in the original will she asked the executor to provide a home for Rogene Peterson, apparently in Rawlins. Values had changed between 1944 and 1951. Rogene had moved to Colorado. So the 1951 codicil gave a specific legacy to her. In the original will, C.A. Brimmer had been appointed executor. He had a claim against the testatrix for some $21,000 of which she disproved, so it was not illogical that she should provide for another executor in the codicil. Testatrix told the witness Nellie Parker many times that Elmer Peterson would have the ranch, because that was what Andy (her deceased husband) would want. In 1944 testatrix told the witness Sarah Comstock that she was going to leave everything to Elmer, and that his father was the only one who had done anything for her. In 1946 she told another witness that Elmer would get the ranch. Other witnesses testified to a similar effect. In view of this evidence, the court gave the jury Instruction No. 17, reading as follows: You are instructed that if the maker of a Will shows a continuity of purpose, which indicates a settled intent or consistent state of mind on his part as to the manner of distributing his estate, such fact may be considered in determining whether or not he was in possession of a disposing mind and testamentary capacity, and was free from undue influence. The instruction is perhaps based on a similar instruction, held to be proper, In re Hart's Estate, 107 Cal. App. (2d) 60, 67, 236 P. (2d) 884, 889, in which the instruction given was as follows: `If, prior to executing his last will, a testator shows a continuity of purpose running through his former wills and codicils which indicates a settled intent or a consistent state of mind on his part as to the manner of distributing his estate, this is entitled to be considered by you in determining whether or not a testator was in possession of a disposing mind, that is, had testamentary capacity and was free from undue influence in making his last will.' The case cites a number of other California cases. In some at least of these cited cases the testamentary capacity was not attacked as of the time when the former wills, introduced in evidence, were executed. Appellants claim that the instruction given was erroneous, since former wills of similar import as the will attacked may not be introduced in evidence except when the testamentary capacity of the testator at the time when such former wills were executed is not attacked. Counsel, aside from a number of cases, cite us to 57 Am. Jur. § 126, pp. 118, 119, where it is said: It is generally held that where the issue in a will contest is testamentary capacity, former wills executed by the testator are admissible in evidence as proof of testamentary capacity, where they were made at a time as to which his competency is unchallenged and are in substantial conformity in respect of the provisions contained with the contested will. Not many appellate courts have passed on the precise question here involved. The rule stated in the case of In re Hart's Estate, supra, is opposed by the Illinois decisions  the substance of which is stated in 57 Am. Jur. p. 119. In Wright v. Upson, 303 Ill. 120, 135 N.E. 209, 217, the court, citing former decisions stated: If such former declarations and former wills were executed at a time when the testator was unquestionably of sound mind and disposing memory, they furnish very strong evidence of the soundness of mind of the testator at the time the will in question was executed, but if the soundness of mind of the testator is questionable at both times, a conclusion or presumption of soundness of mind does not naturally follow. The point in question is not free from doubt. It is, perhaps, one for expert psychologists, of whom there are probably few, if any. But if we may be permitted to enter into their field, we might venture to say that if a person was insane in say 1944 when he executed a will, it would be a marvel if he would make the same sort of will with some logical changes in 1951, unless, perchance, he was working under some insane delusion during all that time, of which there is no evidence in this case. If a human mind, not acting in a manner that is clearly freaky or clearly abnormal, acts in the same or similar manner at various stages of life toward and in connection with the same basic facts before it then, it would seem, that would be some evidence that it is rational and normal at each of these various stages, and that conclusion would seem strong in proportion to the number of times in which the same attitude of mind toward the same basic facts would be manifested, either orally or in writing. 6 Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd Ed., § 1738, discusses the question of incapacity to resist pressure (which normally would also involve the question of testamentary capacity) and the question of normality of the will's disposition at some length, holding in that connection the testator's utterances, whether prior or subsequent, may all be considered. In the note in 3 American Decisions 397, it is stated: In case of insanity or undue influence, the evidence takes a wider range, and here the subsequent as well as the prior declarations of the testator are admissible.    For this purpose it (the evidence) is direct and primary. The principal fact to be established is the mental condition of the testator at the time of making his will; and for this purpose evidence of his declarations, previously and subsequently, directly bears on the question, and must be relevant and competent. See also Goodbar v. Lidikay, 136 Ind. 1, 35 N.E. 691, 43 Am. St. Rep. 296; Neel v. Potter, 40 Pa. 483; Moore v. Parks, 122 Miss. 301, 84 So. 230, 237; Waterman v. Whitney, 11 N.Y. 157, 165, 62 Am. Dec. 71; Hollingworth v. Kresge, 48 R.I. 341, 137 A. 908; Portner v. Portner's Ex'rs., 133 Va. 251, 112 S.E. 762. If such evidence is admissible, there seems to be little objection to calling attention thereto in an instruction. The will in question was not freaky or clearly abnormal. We do not think that the giving of the instruction was prejudicial particularly in view of the fact that testamentary capacity of Jarda Nelson is admitted. And in view of the fact that there was no evidence of undue influence at the time when the codicil which confirmed the will was executed, the instruction, if error at all on that point, was not prejudicial.