{ "id": 11270732, "name": "In Re Will of MRS. MONTIE McINTOSH SEYMOUR", "name_abbreviation": "In re Will of Seymour", "decision_date": "1922-11-22", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "418", "last_page": "421", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "184 N.C. 418" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "17 L. R. A. (N. S.), 1127", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.N.S.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "15 L. R. A., 635", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "176 N. C., 610", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657226 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/176/0610-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 N. C., 8", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "22 N. C., 458", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 539, "char_count": 9787, "ocr_confidence": 0.44, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.220652509319937e-08, "percentile": 0.47693514177853613 }, "sha256": "92289dae46a4ef86b57e4bd819689da1c1307e7b054bcca899c26770b9bd05af", "simhash": "1:bd17fa50ac7afec6", "word_count": 1700 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:19.408476+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In Re Will of MRS. MONTIE McINTOSH SEYMOUR." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Adams, J.\nThe appeal presents the sole question whether the instrument which was probated in common form is sufficient in law to constitute the maker\u2019s will and testament, for the caveators concede that if his Honor\u2019s instruction was erroneous issues should have been submitted to the jury on the questions of undue influence and the want of mental capacity. It was shown on the trial that the entire paper-writing, excepting the signature of the two witnesses, is in the handwriting of the maker, and that the words \u201cThis also constitutes my last will\u201d were inserted some time after the remainder of the instrument had been prepared, but. before it was signed. The maker acknowledged the execution of the paper before a justice of the peace, and upon the clerk\u2019s certificate of probate it was recorded during her lifetime in the office of the register of deeds of Moore County as a power of attorney. After her death it was admitted to probate in common form as her last will and testament.\nOne of the essential elements of a will is a disposition of property to take effect after the testator\u2019s death. A testament has been variously defined to be the \u201cdeclaration of a man as to the manner in which he would have his estate disposed of after his death\u201d; \u201ccontinuing title to the testator\u2019s property after his death in such persons as he shall name\u201d; \u201ca just sentence of our will, touching that we would have done, after our death\u201d; \u201cthe expression of that which one may lawfully require to be done after Ms death\u201d; and \u201cthe legal declaration of a man\u2019s intention, which he wills to be performed after his death.\u201d 1 Jarman on Wills, 26; Schouler on Wills, 1; Gardner on Wills, 1; Redfield on Wills, 6; Payne v. Sale, 22 N. C., 458. It is true that no particular form of words is necessary to express an intention to dispose of a person\u2019s property after his death, and the use of inartificial language will not be permitted to defeat an apparent intention expressed in an instrument which complies with the formalities of law. In re Edwards, 112 N. 0., 371. \u201cThe law has not made requisite to the validity of a will that it should assume any particular form, or be couched in language technically appropriate to its testamentary character.\u201d 1 Jarman, 21. Accordingly it has been held that a letter, or a deed, or a paper-writing-in the form of a contract, or other writing, will be valid as a will if it complies with the requirements ordinarily necessary to the execution of such an instrument. In re Bennett, 180 N. C., 8; In re Ledford, 176 N. C., 610; Richardson v. Hardee, 15 L. R. A., 635; Milam v. Stanley, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.), 1127; Ferris v. Neville, 89 A. S. R., 486. So the question whether a written instrument constitutes a will must be determined by applying the tests that are generally recognized and approved by the courts. Aside from questions regarding execution, Gardner says the test to determine whether an instrument is a will is the presence of the testamentary intent \u2014 the animus testandi. This may be manifested by an intention to appoint an executor or a guardian for minor children, or by 'making some positive disposition of the testator\u2019s property\u2014 neither the appointment of the executor or guardian nor the disposition of the property to take effect in any way until the testator\u2019s death. It should be noted, however, that every expression of intent, even if such intent is not to operate until the death of the person entertaining it, is not the expression of -a testamentary intent. Apart from the appointment referred to, a written instrument to be a will must make some positive disposition of the testator\u2019s property, and if it fails to do this, it is not a will and testament. Gardner, supra, 15, 16. And on p. 19 the same writer says: \u201cTo determine whether the document itself discloses a testamentary intent, two tests are commonly resorted to, viz., whether the instrument operates to create any interest prior to the death of the maker, and whether it is revocable during the life of the maker. If under the instrument any interest vests, or if such interest fails to vest merely because of lack of delivery of- the instrument, then it is not a will. In other words, if any interest either vests or is capable of vesting prior to the death of the maker, the instrument is not a will.\u201d\nWe have no hesitation in saying that the instrument in question, when tested by these principles, falls short of a testamentary disposition of property. Tbe maker certified \u201ctbat I . . . invest my busband witb full power of attorney . . . for tbe purpose of acting for me in all business matters.\u201d Tbe busband was \u201cinvested\u201d witb authority to manage tbe property in praesmii; but in no way does tbe paper-writing purport to dispose of sucb property either during tbe lifetime of tbe maker, in which case it would not be a will, or after her death. Tbe clause \u201cThis also constitutes my last will\u201d does not operate as a disposition of tbe maker\u2019s property to take effect after her death, because tbe word \u201cthis\u201d refers to tbe instrument in controversy, which is merely a power of attorney relating to tbe management of tbe property in her lifetime. Probably Mrs. Seymour intended to make a will and thought she bad accomplished her purpose; but a will cannof be established by merely showing an intent to make one. Nor can this conclusion in any wise be affected by evidence offered to show tbat tbe alleged testatrix said \u201cshe wanted Fred to have what she bad,\u201d 'and treated tbe instrument as her will. It contains no latent ambiguity to be explained by parol evidence; what tbe maker intended to say is clearly stated. \u201c\"While extrinsic evidence may be admitted to identify tbe devisee or legatee named, or tbe property described in a will, also to make clear tbe doubtful meaning of language used in a will, it is never admissible, however clearly it may indicate tbe testator\u2019s intention, for tbe purpose of showing an intention not expressed in tbe will itself, nor for tbe purpose of proving a devise or bequest not contained in tbe will. It is a \u2018settled principle tbat tbe construction of a will must be derived from tbe words of it, and not from extrinsic averment.\u2019 \u201d Bryan v. Bigelow, 107 A. S. R., 67; McIver v. McKinney, ante, 393.\nAn examination of tbe record discloses\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Adams, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "George L. Peschau, B. L. Burns, and, Rountree & Garr for the pro-pounder.", "Robert Ruarle, U. L. Spence, and 3. F. Seawell for the caveators." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In Re Will of MRS. MONTIE McINTOSH SEYMOUR.\n(Filed 22 November, 1922.)\n1. Wills \u2014 Animo Testandi.\nA paper-writing to constitute a valid will must by tbe written terms show, among other things, the intent of the maker to dispose of his property to take effect after his death, and when such intent does not so appear, extraneous evidence is inadmissible for that purpose.\n2.- Same \u2014 Disposition of Estate \u2014 Powers of Attorney \u2014 Principal and Agent.\nA paper-writing signed by the wife under seal stating that she was of \u201csound mind and body,\u201d and \u201cinvesting\u201d her husband \u201cwith full power of attorney over all moneys, real estate, liberty bonds, and all other property owned by me at this date, for the purpose of acting for me in all business matters,\u201d etc., designating the property specifically, is but the appointment of her husband as her agent or attorney in fact, without any disposition to him, and ineffectual as a will; and its interpretation otherwise cannot be upheld by the added words, \u201cthis also constitutes my last will,\u201d for this can only refer to the paper that is in itself ineffectual as a will.\nIssue of devisavit vel non, beard before Brock, J., and a jury, at February Term, 1922, of Mooee.\nTbe alleged testatrix was married to E. A. Hastings Seymour on 12 July, 1921, and died on 26 September, 1921. On 26 July sbe signed tbe following instrument:\nTbis is to certify that I, Mrs. Frederick Augustus Hastings Seymour, n\u00e9e Montie Elizabeth McIntosh, being of sound mind and body, do tbis 26 July, 1921, invest my husband, Frederick Augustus Hastings Seymour, with full power of attorney over all moneys, real estate, liberty Bonds, and all other property owned by me at tbis date for tbe purpose \u2022of acting for me in all business matters, etc. (A description of her real and personal property follows.)\nTbis also constitutes my last will.\nGiven under my band, tbis 26 July, 1921.\nMontie E. McIntosh Seymoue. [seal.]\nMes. F. A. Hastings Seymoub. [seal.]\nWitnesses:\nMes. Ella J. Dunlap.\nWilliam B. Dunlap.\nMrs. Seymour acknowledged tbe execution of tbis paper-writing on 3 August, and it was registered in the office of the register of deeds of Moore County on 5 August. On 4 November, 1921, F. A. Hastings Seymour, the surviving husband, presented it to the clerk of the Superior Court and bad it probated in common form as the last will and testament of Mrs. Montie E. McIntosh Seymour, or Mrs. F. A. Hastings Seymour, and at the same time obtained letters of administration on the estate of the alleged testatrix. On 1Y November, 1921, Mrs. Seymour\u2019s next of kin (her brothers and sisters) filed a caveat alleging, besides undue influence and the want of mental capacity, that the words \u201cThis also constitutes my last will\u201d were inserted after her signature was affixed, and that the paper-writing upon its face does not constitute a last will and testament. At the close of the propounder\u2019s evidence his Honor held as a conclusion of law that the instrument in question is not the last will and testament of Mrs. Seymour, and instructed the jury to return a negative answer to the issue, \u201cIs the paper-writing propounded for probate the last will and testament of Montie McIntosh Seymour ?\u201d Upon the return of the verdict, judgment was rendered for the caveators, and the propounder excepted and appealed.\nGeorge L. Peschau, B. L. Burns, and, Rountree & Garr for the pro-pounder.\nRobert Ruarle, U. L. Spence, and 3. F. Seawell for the caveators." }, "file_name": "0418-01", "first_page_order": 474, "last_page_order": 477 }