Mondale v. Edgers

212 P.2d 823, 35 Wash. 2d 325, 1949 Wash. LEXIS 342
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 22, 1949
DocketNo. 31062
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 212 P.2d 823 (Mondale v. Edgers) 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
Mondale v. Edgers, 212 P.2d 823, 35 Wash. 2d 325, 1949 Wash. LEXIS 342 (Wash. 1949).

Opinion

Grady, J.

This appeal has been taken by the executors and trustees appointed by Garrett W. O’Neil in his will from a decree adjudging it to be null and void and vacating a decree admitting it to probate. The will was executed by the testator October 11, 1947. He died March 31, 1948, being at the time of the age of eighty-two years.

The relevant parts of the will recite that he had been married to Maude E. O’Neil and that they were divorced in 1914. He declared that he had in mind his two children born to his former wife and himself. He stated he did not leave them, or their descendants, anything under the will and had intentionally made no provision for them and would make no further mention of them in his will. After making specific bequests in money and articles of personal property, he provided:

“All the rest, residue and remainder of my estate of whatsoever character and wheresoever situated, I give, devise and bequeath to my executors named Dr. Kenneth B. Edgers of Seattle, Washington, as chairman, Dr. Philip R. Fehlandt of Tacoma, Washington, and James P. Sanderson, as attorney, in trust, however, for the following uses and purposes: To buy or build a large house as near Ripon College campus as possible, or on the College property if permitted, to be known as the Garrett William O’Neil Home for the use of worthy boys who are unable to meet all their expenses while attending Ripon College, and limited to Protestant boys who do not smoke, drink intoxicating beverages or gamble. The said Home is to be conducted on the co-operative plan, with no cliques or clans, that a Christian influence shall prevail, and supervised by the College President and the Board of Trustees of Ripon College, who shall assign the boys to the said O’Neil Home.
“I desire and direct that my executors cause all my books, furniture, pictures, rugs, and other household articles of appropriate use be packed and shipped to the said Garrett William O’Neil Home in Ripon, Wisconsin. The said books to be stamped ‘Garrett W. O’Neil, ’97.’ and kept in the said Home for use of the student occupants.”

[327]*327The will was contested by the daughters of the testator upon the grounds that he was lacking in testamentary capacity and entertained fixed and false delusions that Gwyneth Mondale was not his daughter, that she was and for many years had been a prostitute and a confirmed drunkard, and that Natalie Poolman had attempted to murder him by poison.

The court found from the evidence that, shortly after the year 1914, Garrett W. O’Neil began to suffer from a fixed insane delusion of persecution; that between February, 1931, and April, 1935, he began to entertain a fixed and irremovable belief and insane delusion that his daughter Natalie and her husband were trying to poison him; that his daughter Gwyneth had been a prostitute, in which her mother had aided and abetted, when she was from twelve to fourteen years of age; that the mental condition of the testator continued to deteriorate until bn or about the first of the year 1947, when he entertained a fixed insane delusion (from which he could not persuade himself to believe otherwise) that his daughter Gwyneth was not his child and that she was a prostitute; that he also suffered from the insane delusions that the one who had been his trusted physician for many years had tried to convert him into a narcotic addict; that the nurses who were caring for him had tried to poison him; that others had tried to rob him after first putting him under the influence of narcotics; that while he was a patient in a hospital he had been beaten by the attendants; that all of the foregoing were insane delusions and that the testator had been unable to cure himself of them. The court further found and concluded that, but for such delusions on the part of the testator, his will would have been different, and because of such delusions concerning his daughters he was prevented from normally recollecting the natural objects of his bounty and therefore lacked testamentary capacity in that respect. The only conclusion of law which the court drew from the foregoing finding as to incompetency of the testator to make a will was

“That from on or about the first of the year 1947 Garrett W. O’Neil suffered from insane delusions concerning [328]*328his two daughters who were the natural objects of his bounty and that by reason thereof he was then and thereafter incompetent to make a will in so far as they were concerned; and that he died intestate.”

Many witnesses testified with reference to things said and done by the testator over a period of time from 1914 to his death in 1948 indicating his habits, views and opinions, his mode of living, eccentricities and the kind of a person he appeared to be to them, which furnished the basis for the conclusion reached by the trial judge. It would extend this opinion to an undue length to make an analysis of the testimony and would serve no useful purpose, in view of the somewhat limited questions we have for review. All of the matters and things testified to by the witnesses relating to the testator are helpful in determining his state of mind at the time of making his will, and we have considered them, in reaching our conclusions. The questions for our determination are whether the testator at the time he made his will entertained the fixed beliefs with which he is charged with reference to his daughters, that such beliefs constituted insane delusions, and that they materially affected his will.

The respondents have moved to strike the statement of facts and dismiss the appeal upon the ground that it shows upon its face that it is not complete, in that the .inventory and appraisement and other portions of the estate file stipulated to be a part of the record and a stipulation of chronological events are not contained therein.

We are in accord with the view of respondents that it is incumbent upon an appellant to file a statement of facts containing all matters and things necessary and proper for a review of the questions raised, and that, if a statement of facts shows on its face that it is incomplete, the certificate of the trial judge is not necessarily conclusive. We do not have such a situation before us. This proceeding was brought in and was entitled “In the Matter of the Estate of Garrett W. O’Neil, deceased,” then in procéss of probate. During the progress of the trial, counsel for respondents requested and opposing counsel consented that it be stipu[329]*329lated that the proceedings in the estate would be considered as a part of the record of the case on trial.

Near the conclusion of the trial, the court requested counsel to agree upon and present to him a stipulation of chronological events having a bearing upon the case to assist him in its consideration. Counsel complied with the request of the trial judge, and we are satisfied that it was the intention of both the court and counsel that it should become and be considered as a part of the record. This being the case, it assumed the same status as the probate file. The estate files, which included the inventory and appraisement and the stipulation, thus became a part of the record, and it was not necessary to incorporate those documents in the statement of facts. The trial judge certified that the statement of facts contained all the material facts, matters, and proceedings theretofore occurring in the cause “not already a part of the record herein.”

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

Related

In Re O'neil's Estate
212 P.2d 823 (Washington Supreme Court, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
212 P.2d 823, 35 Wash. 2d 325, 1949 Wash. LEXIS 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mondale-v-edgers-wash-1949.