{
  "id": 841328,
  "name": "John G. Mahon v. Mary Decker Mooney et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mahon v. Mooney",
  "decision_date": "1902-04-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "147",
  "last_page": "152",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "196 Ill. 147"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 571,
    "char_count": 11100,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.607,
    "sha256": "f2ffc38fa1aada2714d4da1a94d5e69f76bddd4ed4ae795854b00597e3486d50",
    "simhash": "1:a220d9c9fb10c83e",
    "word_count": 2057
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:55.119373+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John G. Mahon v. Mary Decker Mooney et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Boggs\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis was a bill in chancery filed by the appellant to contest the will of David C. Mahon, his father. The bill charged that the testator had been induced to execute the will through undue influence exercised by one of the legatees therein, Mary Decker Mooney, and also charged that the testator was lacking in the requisite mental capacity to execute a will. The issues made under the bill were heard before and submitted to a jury for decision. The verdict was adverse to the complainant, (the appellant,) and decree was rendered accordingly. This appeal seeks the reversal of such decree.\nThe rulings of the court as to the admissibility of testimony and in instructing the jury as to the principles of law applicable to the case are not complained of and are to be regarded as correct. The charge that the execution of the will was induced by undue influence had no support whatever in the testimony, and has been abandoned. But a single ground is urged for reversal of the decree, and that is, that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence upon the question of the mental power and capacity of the testator to dispose of his property by will.\nThe testator died on Friday, the 11th day of December, 1896, and the will was executed on Tuesday preceding his death. One of the witnesses in behalf of the appellant, a cousin of the appellant and a physician, expressed the opinion that the testator was of unsound mind one year preceding his death, but the evidence was overwhelmingly to the contrary, and counsel for the appellant in their brief say: \u201cThe contention of the contestant is that at no time after the Sunday before his death was David C. Mahon in a mental condition to make a valid will.\u201d In the investigation of this question we have had the aid of an exhaustive oral argument and also full printed briefs. We have diligently and'carefully consulted the evidence preserved in the record. The opinions of many witnesses pro et con as to the mental condition of the testator were given in testimony before the jury. Counsel for the appellant contend it was the opinion of the greater number of those witnesses that the testator, on Sunday preceding his death, and from thence until Friday, the day of his death, was of unsound mind and incapable of executing a will. Perhaps in point of number of witnesses, merely, there is a slight preponderance in favor of this contention of the appellant, but where the greater weight of the testimony lies is not to be determined by a mere numbering of witnesses. The testator was, during the period to which this investigation is thus restricted, seriously ill,\u2014at times in a comatose condition,\u2014and not, at such times, able to resist his physical afflictions and command his mental faculties. Temporary inability to exercise the powers of the mind,\u2014to comprehend and reason rationally,\u2014 arising from the ravages of disease, is not inconsistent with the possession of testamentary capacity at other times than at such intervals. There was no proof of irrational acts or conversations on his part at any time during his illness. He was a portion of the time in an unconscious or semi-unconscious condition, and this seems to have been the ground or basis for the opinion expressed by a number of the witnesses that he was incapable of making a will. When not overcome in coma no one seems to have observed any fact or circumstance indicating that he was not of sound disposing mind.\nThe will was executed on Tuesday preceding the death of the testator on Friday. Dr. Flood, his attending physician, testified that on Monday, (to quote from the abstract prepared by the appellant,) \u201cI told him he would have to prepare for the worst, and he had better get his affairs in shape. He spoke about that himself. I started to make out a memorandum on my prescription blanks of what he wanted to do. I started to make out a memorandum, until he got to specifically state who he was going to leave this piece of property to. I did not want to be mixed up with it, so I told him he had better send for his attorney. He mentioned'some money he had in the safety deposit vault,\u2014about \u00a71200. Said it would defray all expenses. He also mentioned some property on Ohio street. I think he mentioned that should go to his son John, or his son John\u2019s son. I made out a memorandum of those things, and looked for it three days among a lot of old papers but did not find it. He talked about giving the property he was living in to Mrs. Mooney, and the property next door to somebody by the name of Foss or Doss,\u2014-a son-in-law of his. He said that Mrs. Mooney had been looking after him,\u2014 something to that effect. I had seen Mrs. Mooney in the house; that is all I know of her. David C. Mahon was sane at that time.\u201d The same witness further testified: \u201cAfter he had signed his will, when he was awake, he was of sound mind, but he would very readily go back into this sleepy or drowsy condition. He was sane.\u201d\nThe will was prepared by LeG-rand W. Perce, an attorney at law. Charles D. Alberts, one of the attesting witnesses, detailed the occurrences connected with the making of the will, as follows, (to quote again from appellant\u2019s abstract): \u201cThe will was signed Tuesday morning. Col. Perce came the first time on Tuesday, between nine and ten o\u2019clock. He went in and spoke to Mr. Ma-hon. I was in the other room right alongside of him. He brought his stenographer with him. Mahon told him he wanted to make his will. I was present at that time \u2014right at the door. Col. Perce had said to me, \u2018I want you to sit at the door and see that nobody comes in the room.\u2019 I heard what was said. John Mahon and his son went into the room where David C. Mahon lay. At first he didn\u2019t seem to recognize John Mahon. Col. Perce told him that he was there, and said, \u2018Well, they are coming after I am dead, \u2019 or something to that effect, to Col. Perce. John Mahon came into the room before the will was signed. I started out to find John Mahon, when I met him coming in the yard. It was I who told him that his father was pretty sick, and sent him to him. He got there after Col. Perce had arrived. Col. Perce tried to get Dave Mahon to shake hands with his son. He said to him: \u2018Mahon, you don\u2019t know how long you are going to live now; John Mahon is your only boy; you ought not to die with any ill-feeling toward him; I think you ought to make up with him.\u2019 Dave Mahon said, \u2018He has not treated me right. \u2019 Col. Perce told him, \u2018You might as well make up with him.\u2019 They shook hands and John left the room. Col. Perce then sat down and took notes regarding the will. He asked him what disposition he wished to make of his property. Mr. Mahon said, \u2018Well, the house on Ohio street is John\u2019s anyhow, because it belonged to his mother. One of the houses, \u2019 he said, T am going to give to Willie.\u2019 Willie is his grandson, John Mahon\u2019s son. Col. Perce asked him what he was going to give John. He said, T ain\u2019t going to give John anything. \u2019 He again said, \u2018Well, I want to give Mrs. Mooney something. \u2019 Col. Perce asked him what he wanted to give Mrs. Mooney. He answered, \u2018Well, I thought about dividing up a flat building and giveng her a flat.\u2019 Col. Perce said, \u2018Better give her some money. \u2019 Mahon said, \u2018No, I won\u2019t give her any money.\u2019 Col. Perce said,\" \u2018You better give her a couple of thousand dollars.\u2019 Mahon said, T guess I know what I want to do. \u2019 He was pretty tired and lay back on his pillow. After he was again aroused Col. Perce asked him the same question. He answered, T will give her one of the houses, then. \u2019 Col. Perce said, \u2018If you are determined to do that, you had better fix it up now and get done with it, because you are getting pretty weak; I think you had better give your property to your son.\u2019 Mr. Mahon said, T know what I want to do with my property; I\u2019ll do as I damn pleased Col. Perce then drew up the paper and read it to him. I mean this will here. Mr. Stager was present in the room at this time. This was before Adams came into the room. After Col. Perce had read the will to Mr. Mahon he asked him if he were satisfied. Mr. Mahon answered, \u2018Yes.\u2019 He lay down again in bed. Col. Perce then asked him, \u2018Who do you want to witness this will; do you want Alberts?\u2019 Mahon said, \u2018Yes; I want Alberts to witness it.\u2019 Col. Perce then suggested Mr. Adams, an acquaintance of the family. They sent and got Mr. Adams. We went in. We stood at the foot of the bed. Col. Perce asked me to get something that Mr. Mahon could write on. I picked up something of rather solid substance. Mr. Adams and I raised Mr. Mahon up in bed, and I held him and held the paper and ink in my left hand. I held Mr. Mahon up against my left shoulder, and he signed the will. We laid him down and Col. Perce said, \u2018Shall I read the will?\u2019 Mr. Mahon said, \u2018You read it once,\u2019 or something to that effect. Col. Perce said to me, \u2018Do you want to read it, Alberts? \u2019 I told him I knew what it was; maybe Mr. Adams did not. I knew what was in it, anyhow, and heard it all. Mr. Mahon had heard it. Mr. Adams then went home, and Mr. Mahon said, \u2018Get my pocket-book and pay the colonel.\u2019 So I got the pocket-book and paid him $50. Mr. Mahon, remarked, \u2018It is a damned high price for a few minutes\u2019 work, ain\u2019t it?\u2019 He said it that way, and smiled, and said, \u2018He only charged me $25 for my wife\u2019s will; well, it is'my last chance, and I guess they will get all the money they can.\u2019\u201d\nIf these witnesses were worthy of credit, the conclusion that the testator, at the time the will was executed, was possessed of ample mental power to dispose of his property by will, which would inevitably and properly arise in the minds of the jurors, could hardly be dislodged by a mere preponderance in the number of opinions held and expressed by other witnesses as to the mental condition of the testator at other times than when the will was signed and attested. The credibility of these witnesses was a question for the determination of the jury.\nThe suggestion of counsel for the appellant that \u201cperhaps, after all, the medical testimony in this particular case is the most valuable,\u201d cannot avail to overturn the verdict of the jury. Four physicians gave testimony, \u2014 that of two of them, Dr. Flood and Dr. Moyer, to the effect the testator was sane; that of Dr. Tracy and Dr. Lambden to the contrary. There is no reason we should decline to accept the verdict of the jury as the true and correct solution of the issue of fact in the case.\nThe decree is affirmed.\nDecree affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Boggs"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. D. Condee, H. D. Headley, and R. W. Condee, for appellant.",
      "Edgar Bronson Tolman, and Joseph B. David, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John G. Mahon v. Mary Decker Mooney et al.\nOpinion filed April 16, 1902.\nWills\u2014temporary coma not inconsistent with testamentai-y capacity at other times. That the testator was at times during his last illness in a comatose condition is not inconsistent with possession of testamentary capacity by him at other times than such intervals.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Abner Smith, Judge, presiding.\nL. D. Condee, H. D. Headley, and R. W. Condee, for appellant.\nEdgar Bronson Tolman, and Joseph B. David, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0147-01",
  "first_page_order": 147,
  "last_page_order": 152
}