Court Opinion

ID: 9827952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:57:32.635463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:40.078203
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In this motion for rehearing the appellants renew their complaint of the refusal of the court to submit the following form of a special issue:
“In order for a person to be competent to make a will it is necessary that such person possess testamentary capacity. By the words ‘testamentary capacity’ is meant that the person making the will must, at the time the will is executed, have sufficient ability, without prompting, to understand the business in which she is engaged, the effect of her acts in making the will, the capacity to know the objects of her bounty and their claim upon her, and the general nature and extent of her property.
That definition has been approved by the courts in many cases. In this case, however, the trial court did not ask the jury the abstract question as to whether or not the testatrix had testamentary capacity, but-used a more concrete form of inquiry. The answers given implied a finding that at the time of making her will' Mrs. Bollinger knew what she was doing, that she was making a will disposing of her property; she knew the contents of the will, and understood the disposition that she was making of her property; the will referred to several articles of property and specifically named the beneficiaries. The only practical difference between this form of inquiry concerning the mental capacity of the testatrix and that requested by the contestants is that, in the form used, the jury weie not required to find that the testatrix knew the objects of her bounty and their claim upon her and the general nature and extent of her property. The omission of a finding upon those issues is, we think, immaterial.
Upon a further examination of the testimony adduced in the trial court we have reached the conclusion that proof of the mental soundness of Mrs. Bollinger was so abundant that a finding to the contrary might be seriously questioned as unsupported by the evidence. She did not have extensive property holdings, and the evidence did not warrant a finding that she did not understand the nature and extent of that property. There was ample reason for the exclusion of the contestants from any benefits under the provisions of her will, and there is nothing unusual or unnatural in any of the bequests that were made.
We are of the opinion that, even though there may have been some technical errors committed in the trial of the case, justice requires that the judgment should be affirmed.
The motion is overruled.