Campbell v. Campbell
Citations
- 138 Ill. 612
- 28 N.E. 1080
Syllabus
<p>1. Contest of will—testamentary capacity. The inquiry as to the mental capacity of one to make a valid will should be made in view of the circumstances of the case as shown by the evidence, and a determination reached by a consideration of the nature and character of the business about to pe performed in making the will. The testator must have had, at the time, an intelligent comprehension of the surrounding circumstances, and of their direct consequences and probable results. He must have been able not only to understand that he was by will disposing of his property, but he must also have had capacity sufficient to comprehend the extent of the property devised, and the nature of the claims of others upon him.</p> <p>2. Same—mistakes in description of lands—effect of. The fact that mistakes are made in the description of lands devised, and in other respects, is a circumstance that may be considered in connection with-the other evidence on the issue of the validity of the will; but such circumstance is by no means conclusive.</p> <p>3. Such mistakes will not render the will void, if it appears that the testator, at the time of its execution, had sufficient mental capacity to make a will, and that he then acted under no constraint or compulsion. Contestants of a will can not urge the rights of devisees whose lands are mis-described, who are not complaining.</p> <p>4. Same—burden of proof. On the contest of the validity of a will, the burden of proof is upon the defendants to show, by a preponderance of evidence, that the will is attested by two or more witnesses, two of whom must testify that they saw the testator sign the same in their presence, or that he acknowledged the will to be his act and deed, and that they signed the same as witnesses thereto, at his request. That proof made, the burden is then upon the contestants to impeach the will.</p> <p>5. Same—acts to influence testator—admissibility of declarations of witnesses. On bill to contest a will, proof of
Judges: Scholfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Williams v. CrickmanIllinois Supreme Court· 1980-05-30· cited 55×
- Smith v. HenlineIllinois Supreme Court· 1898-06-18· cited 34×
- George v. MoorheadIllinois Supreme Court· 1948-03-18· cited 20×
- Lyman v. KaulIllinois Supreme Court· 1916-10-24· cited 14×
- Dillman v. McDanelIllinois Supreme Court· 1906-06-14· cited 13×
- People v. LewisAppellate Court of Illinois· 2017-07-19· cited 12×
- Cunniff v. CunniffIllinois Supreme Court· 1912-10-26· cited 4×
- Petersen v. Midwest Transfer Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1951-05-31
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.