{ "id": 8625888, "name": "In the Matter of the Last Will and Testament of L. A. CRAIG", "name_abbreviation": "In re the Last Will & Testament of Craig", "decision_date": "1926-12-08", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "656", "last_page": "658", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "192 N.C. 656" } ], "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": "24 N. C., 78", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8685220 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/24/0078-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 N. C., 341", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652364 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/155/0341-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 N. C., 113", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653343 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/187/0113-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 N. C., 381", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652060 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/140/0381-01" ] }, { "cite": "170 N. C., 58", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657137 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/170/0058-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 342, "char_count": 5629, "ocr_confidence": 0.452, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.29376369973266e-08, "percentile": 0.47945034633293293 }, "sha256": "75fe9c88360efd91b0402ad28e9b43056127bcd427874a8f89392a6006eb7b07", "simhash": "1:b286f8d56e568c2e", "word_count": 966 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:38.190415+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In the Matter of the Last Will and Testament of L. A. CRAIG." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Brogden, J.\nTbe caveators allege that tbe testator did not have sufficient mental capacity to make a will, and that said will was obtained by bis wife, Lillie A. Craig, and ber close relatives by means of undue and improper influence and duress exercised upon tbe said testator.\nTbis Court has intimated in cases of this kind that it is a better practice to submit separate issues relating to mental capacity and undue influence. In re Rawlings\u2019 Will, 170 N. C., 58.\nA niece of the testator was asked the following question: \u201cFrom your experience and observation while you were there, and of the deceased, your uncle, I\u2019ll ask you whether or not in your opinion he was under' the domination, direction and control of his wife.\u201d\nThe witness answered: \u201cYes, sir, he was.\u201d\nThe propounders excepted to the ruling of the court in permitting the question and answer.\nAnother witness was asked: \u201cAre you able to- state as to whether or not he was under the influence and domination and control of his wife ?\u201d\nThe witness answered: \u201cNot positive.\u201d\nThe propounders excepted to the ruling of the court in permitting the question and answer.\nAnother witness was asked: \u201cFrom your experience and observation, have you an opinion as to whether or not he was under the influence and domination and control of his wife, Mrs. Lillie Craig ?\u201d\nThe witness answered: \u201cSomewhat, yes.\u201d\nThe propounders excepted to the ruling of the court in permitting the question and answer.\nAnother witness was asked: \u201cFrom your experience and observation visiting that home there, and seeing and judging the relations between Mr. Craig and his wife, have you an opinion as to whether or not she exercised influence over him and he was under her dominion and control ?\u201d\nWitness answered: \u201cI think so.\u201d\nThe propounders excepted to the ruling of the court in permitting the question and answer. There was other testimony to the same effect.\nThe law is well settled, that in eases involving the mental capacity of a testator to make a will, that a nonexpert witness, though not a subscribing witness or even present when the will is made, may testify as to the mental condition of a testator if he has had reasonable or adequate opportunity for observation. Bond v. Mfg. Co., 140 N. C., 381; In re Rawlings\u2019 Will, 170 N. C., 58; Hyatt v. Hyatt, 187 N. C., 113. This principle, however, has never been extended by the courts to include opinions as to undue influence.\nIn Stewart v. Stewart, 155 N. C., 341, the caveator was a son by the first marriage, and the propounder was the second wife and chief beneficiary. The following question was asked: \u201cWhat influence did Cassie Stewart seem to exert over Henry Stewart, Sr.?\u201d The witness answered : \u201cShe certainly seemed to do most of the talking, and he seemed to be under her thumb a good deal.\u201d The court excluded the question and answer. Clark, C. J., says: \u201cTbe question was excluded upon tbe ground tbat it was leading. \"We also tbink tbat it was incompetent as tbe expression of a conclusion wbicb it was tbe province of tbe jury to draw upon facts placed before tbem. Tbe condition of tbe testator\u2019s mind was a matter as to wbicb any one baving opportunity for observation can testify, subject to cross-examination to test tbe value of tbe opinion expressed by tbe witness, Clary v. Clary, 24 N. C., 78, but whether there was undue influence is a question for tbe jury to decide from tbe facts and circumstances placed in evidence . . . But it would not have been competent for tbe witness ... to testify tbat such\u2019person bad a controlling influence over tbe testator.\u201d\nTbe evidence, therefore, was incompetent and inadmissible, and constitutes reversible error. There are other serious questions presented in tbe record as to tbe competency of evidence, but we express no opinion in regard to tbem for tbe reason tbat there must be a new trial for tbe errors specified, and each party is entitled to have tbe case tried upon its merits without tbe embarrassment of intimation from this Court.\nNew trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "Brogden, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Squires <& 'Whisnant and E. B. Cline for propounders.", "W. Q. Newland, F. A. Linney and Lawrence Wahefield for caveators." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In the Matter of the Last Will and Testament of L. A. CRAIG.\n(Filed 8 December, 1926.)\nWills \u2014 Undue Influence \u2014 Evidence\u2014Nonexpert Witnesses.\nEvidence is incompetent from a nonexpert witness that the testator, whose will was being tried upon the issue of devisavit vel non, was under the undue influence of the wife when making the will in question in her favor. Where undue influence and mental incapacity are in question, it is better to submit each under separate issues.\nCivil actioh, tried at May Term, 1926, of Caldwell before Lane, J., and a jury.\nOn 20 May, 1925, L. A. Craig executed a last will and testament, de- \u25a0 vising to bis wife, Lillie A. Craig, all of bis property and appointing ber executrix of tbe will. Tbe testator left bim surviving an only child by a former marriage, to wit, Mrs. Edith Price. Tbe testator bad no child by bis second wife, Lillie A. Craig. Tbe devisee and executrix, Mrs. Lillie A. Craig, presented tbe will for probate and obtained letters of administration upon tbe estate. Thereafter Mrs. Price filed a caveat to said will. Pending tbe trial of tbe issue, Mrs. Lillie Craig died intestate, leaving as ber heirs at law and distributees ber brothers and sisters, who were duly made.parties to tbe proceeding.\nTbe case was tried upon tbe single issue: \u201cIs tbe paper-writing propounded for probate, or any part thereof, tbe last will and testament of L. A. Craig?\u201d\nTbe jury answered tbe issue no, and tbe propounders appealed, assigning errors.\nSquires <& 'Whisnant and E. B. Cline for propounders.\nW. Q. Newland, F. A. Linney and Lawrence Wahefield for caveators." }, "file_name": "0656-01", "first_page_order": 730, "last_page_order": 732 }