Betcher v. Brady

101 P. 220, 52 Wash. 644, 1909 Wash. LEXIS 1170
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedApril 20, 1909
DocketNo. 7655
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 101 P. 220 (Betcher v. Brady) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Betcher v. Brady, 101 P. 220, 52 Wash. 644, 1909 Wash. LEXIS 1170 (Wash. 1909).

Opinion

Dunbar, J.

This is an action brought by Margaret Betcher to contest the will of her mother, the deceased Sarah Jane Palmer, on the ground of undue influence and intimidation wrought by her husband, James P. Palmer, in the procurement of the will in his favor. The property covered by the will was practically all inherited by the deceased [645]*645a short time before her fatal illness. The contestant is the only living heir of deceased. Sarah Jane Palmer was sixty years of age when she died. About the 1st day of January, 1907, she was stricken with paralysis, which finally caused her death. The- will was executed upon February 7, 1907. The court found that the petition of Margaret Betcher contesting the will aforesaid should be denied, and that James Brady, administrator with the will annexed, should have judgment against her for his costs and disbursements. From this judgment this appeal is taken.

Several errors are alleged upon the introduction of evidence and upon technical legal questions, but with the view we entertain of the merits of the case, their discussion and decision become immaterial. The merits of the case, as found by the court,, will be found in finding of fact No. 4s, which is as follows:

“That at the time of making said last will and testament so proven and admitted to probate as aforesaid, the deceased Was of sound and disposing mind and memory and in all respects competent to make a valid will, and that at the time of making said last will and testament so proven and admitted to probate as aforesaid the said deceased acted freely and voluntarily and of her own will and was not coerced, commanded, threatened or intimidated to the making of said will, and that said deceased was not unduly influenced by James P. Palmer, or any other person in the making of said will, and that in the making thereof she acted as a free agent and that the disposition of the property of said deceased as made in the said will was according to the. desire, wish and will of the said deceased at the time of the making thereof.”

The testimony in this case is not extensive, and we have examined it carefully, and are unable to reach the conclusion reached by the court in said finding of fact. We appreciate the fact that ordinarily, if the testimony seems anyways nearly equally balanced, this court, recognizing the advantage that the trial court has in viewing the witnesses, would hesitate to disturb its judgment. Nevertheless, the case is to be determined here upon the record, and the détermi[646]*646nation of the case from the record is a duty which this court cannot escape.

The record presents a plain conflict in the testimony. The first witness who was introduced by the contestant, viz., John W. Riddall, who was an old acquaintance of the deceased and her husband, and with whom they lived a long time prior to her death, swore positively that the husband was ' constantly telling her that he wanted her to make a will and will him that money that she was getting from Iowa; that she said, no, she did not want to do it; that in the first place he was drunk all the time and he would spend it and squander it, and in the second place, it should rightfully go to her daughter, because it had been left by her son, and that it was his wish that it should finally go to the daughter; that he would then get mad at her and would look at her, stare her in the face, and shake his finger at her, and say, “You must; you must. You have got to make it. I must have it,” and would promise that if she would make a will to him, he would quit drinking; that she tried him for a while, and that he continued to drink; that the woman then positively told him that she would never make a will out to him; that the husband would commence talking to her about the will almost every day, making covert threats, saying, “You must; you have got to; you have got to mind me;” that sometimes she would turn her eyes away from him, and sometimes the tears would come in her eyes, but on the next day after she would say nothing; that when she was taken down with a paralytic stroke, he told her again that he wanted that will, and she told him, “No, I have told you that I did not want to will the property to you, but that I want it to go to my daughter;” and that over and over again the same thing would be brought to bear upon her; that the night before the will was made out, he was sleeping in a room adjoining them, the door being open, and that they talked all night nearly about the will, and finally the deceased said, “Well, I can’t stand it any longer. This worrying over a few dollars is putting me in my grave and I [647]*647wont stand it. I will make out the will just for the sake of peace;” that she said, “Get it made out as soon as you can, for God’s sake, and let me have peace;” that she was so confused that she wouldn’t get up and eat; said she had had no sleep and she didn’t want anything, and she didn’t get up; that the husband went and got the scrivener, Mr. Street, and he came up and made the will that afternoon; that Mr. Palmer told him how to make out the will — the conditions of it and that when the will was made out, the woman was so weak that Mr. Palmer held her hand while she signed it, and as soon as she signed it she broke down and cried like a child. This and much more was testified to by the witness Riddall, and we are unable to determine that this testimony was at all shaken on cross-examination. The witness also testified that Mrs. Palmer was afraid of her husband.

Mary A. Schuster testified, that she was frequently at the house where Palmer and his wife lived, helping and doing a part of the work, and that the deceased said when she asked her how she felt, “I don’t feel very good.” “I says, ‘Why Mrs. Palmer?’ she said, ‘I had to make a will over to Uncle Jim;’ that is her husband; and I said, ‘I wouldn’t do it.’ She said, ‘No, I wouldn’t do it, but he made me do that, and he said I have to do it;’ she had to mind him.” The witness was a German woman and her testimony is a little awkward in expression, but she testified, in substance, that the sick woman took her hand, and adjured her not to tell anybody what she had been telling her about her husband; that she was afraid; and told her that he had intimidated her with a gun — came in with a gun in his hand and told her that if she did. not mind him, that would go through her brain; and that since that time she would never stay alone in the house, and had asked Mr. Riddall if he wouldn’t stay with her as long as she lived, saying that she was going to make another will before she died, and that her husband shouldn’t have that money. The witness also testified that the husband had come home on a certain occasion, had “got mean” with [648]*648his wife, went into the kitchen and got a gun and came back and was exhibiting it, pointing it, in the language of the witness, “at the poor woman.” She also testified that Palmer had told her, when he stopped at her house to get her to go up and stay with his wife while he went for Mr.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Riley's Estate
300 P. 159 (Washington Supreme Court, 1931)
Riley v. Shields
300 P. 159 (Washington Supreme Court, 1931)
Money v. Seattle, Renton & Southern Railway Co.
109 P. 307 (Washington Supreme Court, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
101 P. 220, 52 Wash. 644, 1909 Wash. LEXIS 1170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/betcher-v-brady-wash-1909.