{ "id": 4775870, "name": "Rachel Ann Carpenter et al. v. Josephine Calvert", "name_abbreviation": "Carpenter v. Calvert", "decision_date": "1879-07-16", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "171", "last_page": "174", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "4 Ill. App. 171" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "7 Pa. St. 455", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 957804 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/pa/7/0455-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 B. Mon. 229", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "B. Mon.", "case_ids": [ 4444946 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ky/49/0229-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 Ohio St. 143", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ohio St.", "case_ids": [ 512386 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ohio-st/7/0128-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 Ill. 46", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 820039 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/67/0046-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 Pa. St. 569", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 964921 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/pa/13/0569-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 Ill. 485", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 425066 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/45/0485-01" ] }, { "cite": "34 Me. 162", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Me.", "case_ids": [ 8846304 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/me/34/0162-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 Ill. 17", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "41 Ill. 80", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5218606 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/41/0080-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 Conn. 261", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Conn.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "22 Me. 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Me.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "46 Ill. 61", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5298227 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/46/0061-01" ] }, { "cite": "47 Ill. 92", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5269510 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/47/0092-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 Ill, 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5295091 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/42/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 Ill. 58", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5318492 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/73/0058-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 Ill. 346", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 820128 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/67/0346-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 Ill. 167", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2626068 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/68/0167-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Gilm. 70", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gilm.", "case_ids": [ 2466216 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/6/0070-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 Ill. 376", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5295225 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/42/0376-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Gilm. 72", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gilm.", "case_ids": [ 2567615 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/10/0072-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 Ill. 222", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 823948 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/78/0222-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 Ill. 457", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "15 Serg. & R. 39", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Serg. & Rawle", "case_ids": [ 1815547 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/serg-rawl/15/0039-01" ] }, { "cite": "60 Ill. 301", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 8500986 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/60/0301-01" ] }, { "cite": "60 N. Y. 31", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 523175 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/60/0031-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 Ill. 177", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2681652 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/80/0177-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 Gill. 55", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gill", "case_ids": [ 1678274 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/gill/4/0055-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Houston 458", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Houston", "case_ids": [ 1861547 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/del/6/0458-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 Ind. 399", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1481317 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/33/0399-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 Mo. 275", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 940424 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mo/62/0275-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 Mass. 112", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 2139734 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/99/0112-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Phil. 90", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Phil.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "62 Ill. 196", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2608881 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/62/0196-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 Ill. 159", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 816501 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/51/0159-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 Ill. 33", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2705468 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/74/0033-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 Ill. 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 821803 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/77/0397-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 Ill. 147", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5264874 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/43/0147-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Ill. 112", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5203400, 5204359 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/28/0112-02", "/ill/28/0112-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 Ill. 444", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2705397 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/74/0444-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 Ill. 540", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2660937 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/83/0540-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 Ill. 596", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5308385 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/70/0596-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 Ill. 62", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2659920 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/83/0062-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 Ill. 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5263942 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/43/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 Ill. 26", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2621282 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/66/0026-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 Ill., 149", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5313807 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/82/0149-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 Ill. 62", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2659920 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/83/0062-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 550, "char_count": 7219, "ocr_confidence": 0.535, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.15349640075541085 }, "sha256": "7d023d407a78cc7dd90741917b4ba6baa12bd3be17a117077a61ecd22cca3f95", "simhash": "1:0714e82b799ae844", "word_count": 1283 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:50:02.060400+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Rachel Ann Carpenter et al. v. Josephine Calvert." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Pee Cubiam.\nBill in Equity to set aside the will of one Lydia W. Naudain. On the first trial of the cause, a decree was entered finding against the validity of the will and annulling it. From that decree an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court and the decree of the court below was reversed. Carpenter v. Calvert, 83 Ill. 62.\nThe cause has again been tried before the court and jury, with like finding and decree.\nThe facts are very fully stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court, and we deem it unnecessary to re-state them here.\nThe court say in that case that, \u201c it is impossible for any reasonable man to say that the testatrix on January 6th, 1873, was not capable of making a will,\u201d and we have, after a full examination and careful consideration of all the testimony in this record, come to the same conclusion upon this appeal.\nThe testimony is not materially different upon any point from that which was produced on the former trial. The evidence in the record satisfactorily shows that the testatrix, at the time of the execution of the will, was fully capable of disposing of her property, while every instance of conduct on her part which, unexplained, might raise a suspicion of her mental capacity, seems fairly accounted for by reference to physical causes, of transient operation, disclosed by the evidence, and mainly the use of morphine.\nContestants claim that she was laboring under senile dementia\u2014an affliction, we take it, which is never alleviated by time\u2014yet there is satisfactory proof, such as that furnished by her letters and by the testimony of her physician in Philadelphia, that after the execution of the will her mental faculties were both clear and sound.\nThe appellee has had the benefit of a second trial, and it is to be presumed that she introduced all the evidence obtainable bearing upon the issues before the jury, and we are unable to find in the record evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict, either upon the issue of incompetency of the testatrix, or of undue influence upon the part of appellant. In our own opinion, the court below should have set aside the verdict and dismissed the bill, and believing it will be useless to remand the cause, and this court being authorized so to do (Allman, et al. v. Pigg et al. 82 Ill., 149,) the decree of the court below will be reversed and the bill dismissed.\nDecree reversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Pee Cubiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "Mr. Levi North and Mr. Geo. W. Shaw, for appellants;", "Mr. E. C. Moderwell and Mr. Charles Dunham, for appellant;" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Rachel Ann Carpenter et al. v. Josephine Calvert.\nBill to set aside a will\u2014Practice.\u2014This was a re-trial, the case having been remanded from the Supreme Court. The finding and decree upon the second trial was the same as upon the former trial, which had been reversed by the Supreme Court. The testimony at the last trial not differing materially from that produced on the first trial, the decree is again reversed and as it will be useless to again remand the cause, the Appellate Court enters a final decree dismissing the bill.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Henry county; the Hon. A. A. Smith, Judge, presiding.\nOpinion filed July 16, 1879.\nMr. Levi North and Mr. Geo. W. Shaw, for appellants;\nthat the evidence of unsoundness of mind failed to show testamentary incapacity, being merely opinions of witnesses not founded upon material facts, cited Stackhouse v. Horton, 15 N. J. Chy. 202; Redfield\u2019s Leading Cases, 110; Leck v. Carey, Redfield\u2019s Cas., 326.\nThe evidence is clear that she understood the instrument-claimed as her will: Wiley v. Ewalt, 66 Ill. 26; Clearwater v. Kimler, 43 Ill. 272.\nThe Supreme Court had decided the question of the testatrix\u2019 mental capacity, and that question was res adjiidicata: Carpenter v. Calvert, 83 Ill. 62; Rising v. Carr, 70 Ill. 596; Clayes v. White, 83 Ill. 540; Tuttle v. Garrett, 74 Ill. 444.\nThe instrument was the performance of a valid testamentary contract rather than a will: 2 Redfield on Wills, 281.\nThe court should, have compelled payment of appellants\u2019 costs in Supreme Court before permitting further prosecutions: Clark v. Quackenboss, 28 Ill. 112; 1 Daniell\u2019s Ch. Pr. *35.\nEvidence of supposed influence over the testatrix, not connected with a testamentary act, is improper: Brownfield v. Brownfield, 43 Ill. 147.\nSo also of evidence of former testamentary intentions unconnected with evidence of undue influence: Rutherford v. Morris, 77 Ill. 397.\nEvidence of verbal declarations of testamentary intentions was improper: Boylan v. Meeker, Redfield\u2019s Cas. 488.\nAfter the will had been admitted to probate, the burden of proof was on the contestants: Yoe v. McCord, 74 Ill. 33; Sloan v. Maxwell, 2 Green 563; Holloway v. Galloway, 51 Ill. 159; Trish v. Newell, 62 Ill. 196; Carpenter v. Calvert, 83 Ill. 62; Cordrey v. Cordrey, Redfield\u2019s Cas. 198; 1 Redfield on Wills, 42.\nThe recognition by a person of sound mind of a former will shows that the will is valid, without regard to the condition of mind of the party when it was made: Cartwright v. Cartwright, 1 Phil. 90; Slater v. Burnstead, 99 Mass. 112; Thomas v. Stump, 62 Mo. 275.\nThe executor should have been allowed to deduct from the estate his commissions and reasonable expenses of defending the will: 2 Williams on Executors, 1774; Bradford v. Bondinot, 3 Wash. C. C.122; Bratney v. Currey, 33 Ind. 399; Brown v. Rogers, 1 Houston 458: Boylan v. Meeker, 15 N. J. Ch. 310; Compton v. Barnes, 4 Gill. 55; Pingree v. Jones, 80 Ill. 177\nThe court erred in decreeing the will and probate, and all acts of the executor thereunder, null and void: Thompson v. Tracy, 60 N. Y. 31; Shephard v. Rhodes, 60 Ill. 301; Peeble\u2019s App. 15 Serg. & R. 39.\nMr. E. C. Moderwell and Mr. Charles Dunham, for appellant;\nthat the appellate court will not usurp the place of the jury, though the evidence might incline the court to a different result, cited C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Lee, 87 Ill. 457; Clayes v. White, 83 Ill. 540; Plummer v. Rigdon, 78 Ill. 222; Dawson v. Robbins, 5 Gilm. 72; Dickie v. Carter, 42 Ill. 376; Lowry v. Orr, 1 Gilm. 70.\nEvidence of undue influence and senile dementia must be considered together: Redfield\u2019s Cas. 308.\nErrors as to -admission of evidence or improper instructions, of a trivial nature and that do not mislead the jury, will not reverse : City of Alton v. Hope, 68 Ill. 167 ; Pratt v. Tucker, 67 Ill. 346; R. R. I. & St. L. R. v. Rafferty, 73 Ill. 58; McClurkin v. Ewing, 42 Ill, 283; Timmons v. Broyles, 47 Ill. 92.\nThe burden of proof is on the proponents: Allison v. Allison, 46 Ill. 61; Trish v. Newell, 62 Ill. 196; Crowningshield v. Crowningshield, 2 Grey, 503; Erist v. Nason, 22 Me. 441; Comstock v. Hodlyme, 8 Conn. 261; Barry v. Butlin, 1 Curt. Eccl. 638; Dickey v. Carter, 42 Ill. 376; Potter v. Potter, 41 Ill. 80; Rigg v. Wilton, 13 Ill. 17; Cilley v. Cilley, 34 Me. 162.\nAs to the standard of mental capacity: Rutherford v. Morris, 77 Ill. 397; Trish v. Newell, 62 Ill. 196; Roe v. Taylor, 45 Ill. 485; Redfield\u2019s Am. Cas. 60.\nThe court did not err in refusing to allow all the expenses of the contest from the estate: Brown v. Vineyard, 1 Bailey\u2019s Eq. 460; Humper\u2019s App. 3 Watts and Serg. 401; Rogers, App. 13 Pa. St. 569; Meek v. Allison, 67 Ill. 46; Andrews\u2019 Ex\u2019r v. Andrews\u2019 Adm\u2019r, 7 Ohio St. 143; 9 Watts and Serg. 98; 13 Pa. St. 569; 10 B. Mon. 229; 7 Pa. St. 455; 1 Strobh. 369." }, "file_name": "0171-01", "first_page_order": 167, "last_page_order": 170 }