Opinion ID: 1447258
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: admission of swanton testimony

Text: Defendant objected to the testimony of William Swanton, an attorney who testified that he had prepared a prior will for the decedent, with another person witnessing it at testator's request, and that decedent subsequently destroyed that will, Swanton since then without avail having looked for a copy of it. The court's overruling of the objection is now raised as error, it being contended that such testimony violated a privileged and confidential communication and that the result was erroneous and extremely prejudicial to the defendant. This challenge presents a question for which no routine solution is immediately available, principally because the combination of factors in the situation here disclosed are not common. In that connection, the cases offered by the defendant to support the claim of error are of minimal benefit and none relate to a situation in which an attorney drafted a deceased's will, later witnessed its publication, and was subsequently called to testify on behalf of a claimant against the estate. There are extant holdings which would not seem to substantiate the claim of error here. In re Loree's Estate, 158 Mich. 372, 122 N.W. 623, 625; In re Ford's Will, 135 Misc. 630, 239 N.Y.S. 252, 254-256; McCormick, Evidence, p. 200 (1954). However, we find it unnecessary to resolve the point at this time since there was substantial evidence before the court disclosing the identical situation presented by the attorney's testimony, that is, the deceased made a will with the plaintiff as beneficiary and later revoked this will, leaving her out of his bounty. The evidence concerning the making of the former will is to be found in the testimony of Ruby Drazick: Q. Where were you, Miss Drazick, when you learned from Mr. Nichols that he had made a new will   ? A. In my office. Q. Approximately what date? A. I don't remember when in February Marie died, but it was shortly after her death in 1955. Q. Was anyone else present at this time? A. No. Just Mr. Nichols and I were there. Q. What did he say with regard to his will? A. He said that he had just made a new will,    he said that he had left his property to both of his nieces, Tsetsy Pangarova and Peka, her sister   . To a similar effect was a letter written by the deceased February 29, 1956, to plaintiff in which he stated, Tomorrow I will go to make a new will, I will make it all to you to be left to you (as my beneficiary). If something bad should happen to you, Peka will follow after you   . A subsequent letter written by the deceased March 9, 1956, to his brother Maren stated, Day before yesterday I made a new will on my estate.    To the daughter of Marie and her grandchildren, all three I sign in my will to get each of them one dollar. For if they come to contest the will, then each of three of them will gets one dollar and all rest of it I signed Tsetsy to get. If she    don't come and   is not here with me by my death, then Peka, Sashko and Marincho will get my estate by the will. The Casper Nat'l Bank will take care of my estate up to 20 years waiting period   . The admissibility of these letters we will discuss later. It is inherent in the entire litigation that this 1956 will was later revoked by the testator's making a new will in which plaintiff was not mentioned. It follows that the admission of Swanton's testimony was cumulative only and did not constitute reversible error even if the admission had been improper. Northwest States Utilities Co. v. Brouilette, 51 Wyo. 132, 65 P.2d 223, 234, 69 P.2d 623; Cronberg Bros., Inc. v. Johnson, 29 Wyo. 11, 208 P. 446, 449; 5 Am.Jur.2d Appeal and Error § 800; 5A C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 1724.