Court Opinion

ID: 9299076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-12-02 17:05:40.704392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:36.662060
License: Public Domain

STORY, Circuit Justice.
I am of opinion, that all the exceptions to the answer are well taken, and ought to be allowed. The first exception turns upon the allegations in the answer therein referred to, by which an attempt is made by a side wind to impeach the bona fides and due execution of the codicil to the will of Mrs. Sewall, and by implication to insinuate that it was procured by fraud and imposition. Now, it is well known, that the courts of probate have a full and exclusive jurisdiction, as well in New Hampshire as in Maine, over the probate of wills, and that their decree, affirming the validity of a will or codicil, and allowing the same, is conclusive upon the subject matter, and is not reexaminable elsewhere. The present codicil has been duly admitted and allowed by the probate courts of both states. The allegation of the answer, here excepted to, is, therefore, at once impertinent and immaterial, and endeavors to cast a shade upon the transaction, which is not justifiable or excusable. It is not a matter which can be filed in controversy in the present suit, or admitted to proof.
*1109The second exception is to the allegation in the answer setting up an attempted settlement and arrangement, of the nature and terms of which no account is giren, by the defendant, with the plaintiffs, through the means of a professional friend, which was not accepted or adhered to by the plaintiffs, and therefore failed of its purpose. What is this but to stuff the answer with immaterial and impertinent suggestions for the purpose of giving a false gloss and coloring to the controversy? Besides; as the nature and terms of the proffered settlement and arrangement are no where stated, it is impossible for the court to see what possible bearing’ it could properly have upon the cause.
The third exception is the insufficiency of the answer to the 8th interrogatory propounded by the bill, and states the very words of that interrogatory. That interrogatory undoubtedly was intended to refer to the following allegation in the bill, viz.: “Your orators further say, that thereafter-wards the said Elizabeth frequently called upon the said Goddard to refund to her the amount of the said notes so sold by her to him. or return the same, and that the said Goddard repeatedly promised so to do. That on the 20th day of August, 1838, the said William Goddard prepared with his own hand an instrument purporting to be a codicil to the will of said Elizabeth, and procured the said Elizabeth to sign the same, therein and thereby bequeathing to him the aforesaid notes of Floyd and Harris, and also all sums of money due from him to the said Elizabeth, which codicil was so signed by the said Elizabeth by inducement of the said Goddard, and by reason of the confidence subsisting between the said Elizabeth and the said Goddard, and was thereafterward revoked by the said Elizabeth, which codicil was, after its execution, carried away by the said William, and is now in his possession.” It is certainly not as pointed, full and precise, as it ought to be to meet all the stress of the allegations of the bill. It does not interrogate as to the present possession by the defendant of that codicil, or as to what has become of it, and when he last saw it, and what were the exact purport and words thereof; nor does it call upon the defendant to produce it. Still, however, it is sufficient to call upon the defendant for a fair and full answer to the plain import and objects thereof. I cannot but consider the answer put in to this point as inexplicit and evasive, if it does not deserve the stronger imputation of being disingenuous. I shall therefore direct that the defendant put in a more full and direct answer to the interrogatory and allegation in the bill, applicable thereto so that the justice of the case may on this point be fully presented to the court. I shall also give leave to the plaintiff, to put additional interrogatories to the defendant applicable to this same allegation, so as to compel a direct and positive disclosure of the facts appertaining thereto. The defendant is to pay the costs of the hearing upon and allowance of these exceptions, which I shall direct to be taxed at ten dollars.