Clayville-Smith v. Montclair Trust Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Clayville-Smith v. Montclair Trust Co.

143 A. 325, 103 N.J. Eq. 346, 1928 N.J. LEXIS 660

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedOctober 15, 1928

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 143 A. 325 (Clayville-Smith v. Montclair Trust Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clayville-Smith v. Montclair Trust Co., 143 A. 325, 103 N.J. Eq. 346, 1928 N.J. LEXIS 660 (N.J. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

The learned vice-ordinary, after an exhaustive examination of the evidence, concluded that the testator, Edward McDowell, was not the victim of an insane delusion, in the sense intended by the decisions, at the time of making his will, and with that conclusion we agree. In line with the authorities cited by the vice-ordinary is the ease of Smith v. Smith, 48 N. J. Eq. 566, in which testator, the father of a family, believed that he never had had any children and was incapable of having any, and that his children were the fruit of his wife’s adultery. His will was sustained against an attack on the ground of delusion, in an opinion by the late Chancellor McGill sitting as ordinary. In the headnote to that case it is laid down that “a delusion is the mind’s spontaneous conception and acceptance of that, as a fact, which has no real existence except in its imagination, and its persistent adherence to it against all evidence.” The case subjudice fails to satisfy the test propounded in Smith v. Smith, and in Middleditch v. Williams, 45 N. J. Eq. 726, relied on by the vice-ordinary; and, hence, the decree of the prerogative court, sustaining the will, is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Ohiee-Justice, Teehchaed, Paekee, Mihtueh, Kalisch, Black, Katzehbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Yah Bttskikk, McGlehhoh, Kays, Heteield, Deae, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.

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

Pee Cueiam.

The learned vice-ordinary, after an exhaustive examination of the evidence, concluded that the testator, Edward McDowell, was not the victim of an insane delusion, in the sense intended by the decisions, at the time of making his will, and with that conclusion we agree. In line with the authorities cited by the vice-ordinary is the ease of Smith v. Smith, 48 N. J. Eq. 566, in which testator, the father of a family, believed that he never had had any children and was incapable of having any, and that his children were the fruit of his wife’s adultery. His will was sustained against an attack on the ground of delusion, in an opinion by the late Chancellor McGill sitting as ordinary. In the headnote to that case it is laid down that “a delusion is the mind’s spontaneous conception and acceptance of that, as a fact, which has no real existence except in its imagination, and its persistent adherence to it against all evidence.” The case subjudice fails to satisfy the test propounded in Smith v. Smith, and in Middleditch v. Williams, 45 N. J. Eq. 726, relied on by the vice-ordinary; and, hence, the decree of the prerogative court, sustaining the will, is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Ohiee-Justice, Teehchaed, Paekee, Mihtueh, Kalisch, Black, Katzehbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Yah Bttskikk, McGlehhoh, Kays, Heteield, Deae, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A. 325, 103 N.J. Eq. 346, 1928 N.J. LEXIS 660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clayville-smith-v-montclair-trust-co-nj-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack