Miller v. Bush

97 P. 935, 37 Mont. 545, 1908 Mont. LEXIS 72
CourtMontana Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 5, 1908
DocketNo. 2,552
StatusPublished
Cited by36 cases

This text of 97 P. 935 (Miller v. Bush) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Miller v. Bush, 97 P. 935, 37 Mont. 545, 1908 Mont. LEXIS 72 (Mo. 1908).

Opinion

MR. JUSTICE SMITH

delivered the opinion of the court.

The above-named appellant filed her petition in the district court of Silver Bow county, praying for the admission to probate of the will of Mary Miller, deceased. It is recited in said petition that the probable value of the estate is at least $25,000. In and by the will offered for probate the testatrix gave to the appellant the sum of $250, and to the respondent, her daughter, she left all the rest and residue of her estate after the payment of her debts and funeral expenses. The appellant was named -is executrix of said will. The respondent filed a contest to the petition of the appellant, and alleged in said contest, among Dther things, that the testatrix never signed the will offered, and never asked or requested any person or persons to sign her name to said instrument; that she never asked nor requested any person or persons, to sign said will as witnesses, and especially that she never asked nor requested the witnesses who actually signed the will to sign the same as witnesses; that she never declared the instrument to be her last will and testament; that she was in such a weak mental condition at the time of making and signing the instrument that she did not know or realize what was being done; that the signing of her name to said will was done without her knowledge or consent, was a forgery, and not her signature; and, finally, that she was not in a mental condition to make a will and was under duress at the time and the undue [548]*548influence of the appellant. The respondent then offered for probate another will of the deceased, dated prior to the one offered by the appellant, and asked that the same be admitted to probate as the last will and testament of the deceased. In this latter will all of the property of the deceased was left to the respondent.

After hearing testimony, the court rendered its decision as follows: “In this proceeding heretofore tried by this court the court finds for this plaintiff, and concludes therefrom that the will offered for probate by defendant should be, and it hereby is, rejected. It is the further order of the court that this will offered for probate by plaintiff be admitted thereto. I am of the opinion the proof not only fails to show that the ‘Bush’ will was executed and attested as prescribed by statute, but preponderates to the contrary in these particulars, viz., it appears testatrix did not declare to both attesting witnesses that the instrument was her will, and it appears testatrix did not request the attesting witnesses to sign the instrument. The implications usually indulged, that, where testator and witnesses all sign the instrument in each other’s presence, the foregoing requirements were satisfied, arise in cases where the testator is in possession of all faculties, and capable of clear observation and understanding. They cannot be indulged here, where the testatrix was on the verge of dissolution and in a semi-conscious state, with all her faculties dulled and dormant by the near approach of death. It is admitted the will offered by plaintiff is entitled to probate on rejection of this ‘Bush’ will,” and afterward a judgment was entered in accordance with the opinion of the court. The appellant then made a motion for a new trial, which motion was overruled, and she now appeals to this court from the order denying the motion for a new trial, and also from the judgment.

Robert R. Diamond was sworn in support of the petition of appellant. He testified: “I was in Mrs. Miller’s room at the time her will was witnessed. Mr. Rotering asked me to sign this will as a witness. Mrs. Miller asked Mr. Rotering to take [549]*549the witnesses to the will. I heard her, and I saw Mrs. Miller sign it. She said she knew what it was. It was read to her. I heard her talk. She could talk. I was in her room when she signed it, and Townshend was the other witness, and at the time he was in the room. Mr. Rotering, I believe, asked him to sign as a witness. At the time Mrs. Miller was on a pillow. She was in a half sitting position. I do not know — I could not tell whether she appeared to be very sick at that time. She could talk loud enough to be heard, and it was three or four hours after that that she died, I should judge; and I was there when she died. I was not there when .the will was written. The will was written when I came in. I was in there, and Mr. Rotering came in and read the will to her. She signed that will about the 18th of July, at about half-past 9 or 10 o’clock. The pen was in her hand when she signed. As to whether she wrote her name — she held the pen. She tried to write her own name, and she asked Mrs. Bush to guide her hand. She said to Mrs. Bush, ‘Sign for me’; and Mrs. Bush guided her hand, and she wrote with Mrs. Bush guiding her hand. I am sure of that, absolutely. The name here is the one where Mrs. Bush guided her hand for. She tried to write her name herself. She don’t write that way when she was writing. Mrs. Bush did not write, her name. She held her hand. Mrs. Bush guided Mrs. Miller’s hand. That is not her writing. I have seen Mrs. Miller’s writing. I have seen her name signed to papers. She writes a more straight hand than that. Mrs. Miller said, while Dr. Townshend was there, that she knew it was her will when it was read to her. It was read to her in the presence of Dr. Townshend and of all who were there. When it was read to her, she said it was her will. Her voice was not very weak at that time. You could understand her. I live with Mrs. Bush. Mrs. Miller did not ask me to sign this as a witness, and she did not tell me it was her last will, and I did hear her say it was her will, though, when it was read to her. When her name was signed, there she had to be held up in bed. Mrs. Bush held her up. Mrs. Miller did not talk only when she was asked something. [550]*550The will was held before Mrs. Miller so she could sign it, and it was resting on a book, I believe. I did not tell Mrs. Miller that I was signing it as a witness. She saw me. I believe she heard Mr. Entering ask me to sign it. Dr. Townshend signed it first. Mr. Rotering took the paper out of Dr. Townshend’s hand, and asked me to sign it. It is not a fact that, as Dr. Townshend and Dr. McCarthy came in the door, Mrs. Miller was being held up in the bed, and they were trying to get her name signed to it at that moment. ’ ’

Harland H. Townshend testified: “I am a physician and ¡surgeon. I was one of the physicians that attended Mary Miller, deceased, during her last illness. I did not see the will made. I was present when the will was signed, and I walked in as she had the pen in her hand. She was at that time, I think, perfectly rational, so far as her mind was concerned. I signed my name as one of the subscribing witnesses. I signed it at the request of Nicholas Rotering, in the presence of Mary Miller and R. S. Diamond, the other subscribing witness. Mary Miller died at the hour of 12:25 A. M. the next day. She made her will approximately about 9:30 P. M. on July 18, 1907. I did not know her condition prior to the 18th. She died of intestinal obstruction, but the direct cause would be heart failure from pressure of gas that collected in the bowels. She was not in misery from said trouble. I first called to see her about 2 o ’clock and remained there thirty or thirty-five minutes. I then gave her hypodermically a heart stimulant, which was a grain of strychnine and no other medicine. I probably gave her two more injections during the evening. At the first visit her condition was serious, but I did not consider her in immediate danger at that time. My next visit was just before 6 o’clock. I then stayed about twenty minutes.

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

Related

Hillstrom v. Gosnay
614 P.2d 466 (Montana Supreme Court, 1980)
Matter of Estate of Burke
613 P.2d 481 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1980)
Johnson v. Jensen
369 P.2d 526 (Montana Supreme Court, 1962)
Estate of Rudd
369 P.2d 526 (Montana Supreme Court, 1962)
In Re Connelly's Estate
355 P.2d 145 (Montana Supreme Court, 1960)
Estate of French v. Kelly
351 P.2d 548 (Montana Supreme Court, 1960)
Williams v. Swords
284 P.2d 674 (Montana Supreme Court, 1955)
In Re Swords'estate
284 P.2d 674 (Montana Supreme Court, 1955)
In Re the Estate of Atohka
1955 OK 107 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1955)
Nunley v. Willcutt
273 P.2d 391 (Montana Supreme Court, 1954)
In Re Woodburn's Estate
273 P.2d 391 (Montana Supreme Court, 1954)
Brown v. Bukvich
156 P.2d 635 (Montana Supreme Court, 1945)
In Re Choiniere's Estate
156 P.2d 635 (Montana Supreme Court, 1945)
In Re Mickich's Estate
136 P.2d 223 (Montana Supreme Court, 1943)
Sales v. Cowan
89 P.2d 1043 (Montana Supreme Court, 1939)
In Re Sales' Estate
89 P.2d 1043 (Montana Supreme Court, 1939)
In Re Bragg's Estate
76 P.2d 57 (Montana Supreme Court, 1938)
Weaver v. Daems
76 P.2d 57 (Montana Supreme Court, 1938)
In Re Silver's Estate
38 P.2d 277 (Montana Supreme Court, 1934)
Spooner v. Harris
11 P.2d 968 (Montana Supreme Court, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 P. 935, 37 Mont. 545, 1908 Mont. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-bush-mont-1908.