Buechley's Estate

Citations

• 278 Pa. 227
• 122 A. 287
• 1923 Pa. LEXIS 503

Syllabus

<p>Wills — Probate—Undue influence — Presumption — Confidential relation — Mental capacity — Evidence—Burden of proof.</p> <p>1. Where a son, who is the principal legatee under his father’s will, has stood in a confidential relation to testator, a presumption of undue influence arises which he must rebut, but such presumption arises only where there is proof of extreme infirmity or mental weakness.</p> <p>2. If there is nothing in the evidence to support a finding of mental or physical weakness when testator executed the will, the burden is on the contestants to prove undue influence, and, to do so, it must appear that such influence controlled testator’s mind at the time and in the act of making his will.</p> <p>3. Mere solicitation on part of a beneficiary is not enough to establish undue influence.</p> <p>4. Slight circumstances, which might tend to create suspicion, are not sufficient to establish the fact of undue influence.</p> <p>5. An issue devisavit vel non will not be granted where it appears that a son who held a confidential relation to testator was the principal beneficiary; that the son was not present when the will was made; that testator wrote it himself at a time when he had business capacity; and the evidence as to undue influence on part of the son, and of physical and mental weakness of testator, is of the most meager character, and entirely insufficient to establish the claim of contestants.</p>