Clanton v. Shattuck

30 So. 2d 823, 211 La. 750, 1947 La. LEXIS 794
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedApril 21, 1947
DocketNo. 38333.
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 30 So. 2d 823 (Clanton v. Shattuck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Clanton v. Shattuck, 30 So. 2d 823, 211 La. 750, 1947 La. LEXIS 794 (La. 1947).

Opinion

McCALEB, Justice.

Benjamin M. Foster committed suicide in the city of Shreveport on April 10, 1944 by shooting himself with a pistol. The day before he took his life he made an olographic will in which he bequeathed all of his property (except his dog and pistol, which he devised to one C. A. Floyd of Atlanta, Georgia, and two $25 war bonds) to Mrs. June Thurman Shattuck of Lake Charles.

In due course, Mrs. Shattuck opened the succession of Foster in the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo and caused the will to be probated. She applied for letters and was appointed dative testamentary executrix of the succession. Soon afterwards, Mrs. Beulah E. Clanton, the only sister of Benjamin Foster and his nearest of kin, instituted the present suit against Mrs. Shattuck seeking the annulment of the will on the ground that Foster was habitually insane at the time of its execution. Plaintiff charges, in substance, in her petition that she is the heir at law of her brother; that he left neither as *754 cendants nor descendants; that he was married but once and divorced; that he died intestate because the will written by him on April 9, 1944 is void in that, at the time it was executed, he was suffering from taboparesis and cerebro-spinal syphilis, which diseases impaired and were destructive of his brain cells and produced in him a state of general and habitual insanity.

After a trial in the District Court, the charges of Mrs. Clanton were maintained and the will declared a nullity. Mrs. Shat-tuck has appealed from the adverse decision. She contends that the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove her charges and that the record is barren of believable evidence that Foster was insane, either permanently or temporarily, at the time the will was written.

The law of the case is well established. Hence, the ultimate question for determination is one of fact, i. e., whether the testator was insane at the time the will was written, as Article 1475 of the Civil Code provides that only persons of sound mind can make donations either inter vivos or mortis causa. On the other hand, since all persons are presumed to be sane until otherwise affirmatively established, a legal presumption exists in favor of the validity of a will. See Chandler v. Barrett, 21 La.Ann. 58, 99 Am.Dec. 701; Kingsbury v. Whitaker, 32 La.Ann. 1055, 36 Am.Rep. 278; Wilcox v. City of Hammond, 163 La. 489, 112 So. 375 and Artigue v. Artigue, 210 La. 208, 26 So.2d 699, 701.

In the recent case of Artigue v. Artigue, supra, we remarked: “In rebutting this presumption of sanity it is not necessary that the testator be proved to be notoriously insane. Subdivision 10 of Article 1788 of the Revised Civil Code. It is only necessary to prove that the testator’s mental capacity was such that at the moment the will was made he was not of sufficiently sound mind ‘to fully understand the nature of the testamentary act, and appreciate its effects.’ Succession of Bey, 46 La.Ann. 773, 15 So. 297, 301, 24 L.R.A. 577.”

A review of the many cases brought to this court in which wills have been attacked on the ground of the insanity of the testator will reveal that there have been but few instances where the evidence has been found sufficient to warrant the annulment of the will. The proof of insanity must be strong and a great deal depends upon the type of insanity involved. Two types are recognized, — furiosus and mente captus. The latter class are those who are habitually insane, whereas, the furiosi are recurrently insane. The habitually insane are presumed to be incapable of having a lucid interval. See Aubert v. Aubert, 6 La.Ann. 104 and Succession of Morere, 114 La. 506, 38 So. 435. 1 Conversely, those of the furiosus type (the monomaniacs and temporarily insane) will be presumed *756 to have made the testament during a lucid interval unless there is strong testimony to show otherwise. An interesting discussion of this subject will be found in Volume Eleven of the Tulane Law Review, pages 429 through 433.

The jurisprudence discloses that the difficulties encountered by suitors assailing wills on grounds of the insanity of the testator have befen due, in the main, to their inability to submit the degree of proof necessary to overcome the presumption of sanity. Thus, in each case, the weight of the evidence is the all important factoip

With the foregoing principles in mind, we consider the evidence presented in the instant case.

Ben M. Foster was born in 1908. He was the only son of Ben M. Foster and Beulah Coleman Foster. During his early youth his family resided in Lake Charles. After the death of his father in 1915, when Ben was seven years old, his mother moved the family to Shreveport where they resided with Misses Lottie and Mattie Coleman, sisters of Mrs. Foster. Ben Foster contracted syphilis at an early age. Dr. George G. Garrett, Foster’s physician who testified in plaintiff’s behalf, stated that fifteen years before the trial he had discovered an initial lesion of syphilis in Foster and had recommended treatment therefor but that his advice was not heeded. Despite the fact that he had become infected with this disease, Foster married and remained with his wife until 1941, when she left him and thereafter divorced him. Foster’s, mother died during 1941, leaving as her heirs the plaintiff, Mrs. Clanton, and the decedent. Due to the fact that Foster,, at the time of his mother’s death, was. thought to be at least partially insane as a result of cerebro-spinal syphilis, taboparesis and chronic alcoholism (the evidence shows-that he consumed about a quart of whiskey or rum per day), his aunts, Miss Lottie and Mattie Coleman, and his sister did not turn over to him his share of his mother’s- and father’s estate. The amount due him was not considerable (about $6,000) and it was believed that he would immediately squander it. However, certain cash was. furnished him at irregular intervals.

After his wife left him, Foster went to live with the Misses Lottie and Mattie Coleman and he remained at their home most of the time or until a few weeks before his death (excepting periods when he was in the army, from May 15 to September 7, 1942, and on two other occasions when lie was ordered committed to the Veterans Facility Hospital at Little Rock, Arkansas, by orders of the First Judicial District Court).

The medical evidence relative to Foster’s insanity is most convincing. -Dr. George G. Garrett of Shreveport stated that he had known Foster for over fifteen years a-nd had been his physician off and on for that length of time. He discovered an initial lesion of syphilis when Foster first came *758 to his office and his diagnosis was confirmed by a Wasserman test. The doctor asserts that he tried to impress upon Foster, without success, the seriousness of the disease •and that he did not see Foster again until approximately ten years after his diagnosis, when he was called to Foster’s home and found him suffering with an abdominal pain. He says that, from then on, he treated Foster intermittently for a period of four or five years, or until the time of his death; that the disease had entered the decedent’s central nervous system and that he diagnosed it as cerebro-spinal syphilis. Dr.

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

Related

Carrier v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
186 So. 2d 445 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1966)
Succession of Vicknair
126 So. 2d 680 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1961)
Succession of Holland
106 So. 2d 697 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1958)
Succession of Roth
94 So. 2d 270 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1957)
Succession of Franz
94 So. 2d 270 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1957)
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Anderson
101 F. Supp. 808 (E.D. Louisiana, 1951)
Succession of Schmidt
53 So. 2d 834 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1951)
Succession of Pizzati
50 So. 2d 189 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 So. 2d 823, 211 La. 750, 1947 La. LEXIS 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clanton-v-shattuck-la-1947.