Skip to main content
· 1/8/1917

Gongaware v. Donehoo

Citations

  • 255 Pa. 502
  • 100 A. 264
  • 1917 Pa. LEXIS 482

Syllabus

<p>Wills — Fraud—Undue influence — Testamentary capacity — Confidential relation — Interlineation.</p> <p>1. The influence exercised in procuring the execution of a will, and relied on to set it aside, must be such as destroys the free agency of the testator and subjects his mind to the will of another person. It must be a present restraint operating as a moral coercion at the time the will is made. There must be present the power and will of another which so cbntrols the mind of testator that he is unable to decide for himself, but submits to the desire of the former^</p> <p>2. Where in proceedings to contest the validity of a will, attacked on the ground that testatrix lacked testamentary capacity, and that fraud and undue influence were exercised over her by one of her beneficiaries, it appeared that although testatrix occasionally suffered from hallucinations and was rambling in her conversation and changed from one subject to,another, yet where it further appeared that testatrix attended to her business affairs in a way that indicated that she had a proper conception of business matters and terms, and that she had transacted business with various witnesses who testified that she was mentally sound and knew what she was doing, the evidence of testamentary incapacity was insufficient to sustain a verdict against the will.</p> <p>3. While it is true that where a testator leaves a substantial part of his estate to one occupying a confidential relation, the burden is on the latter to show that no improper influence controlled the making of the will, this presumption arises only where there has been proof of extreme infirmity or mental weakness and the physical and mental condition of testatrix must be shown to be of such character in order to raise this presumption.</p> <p>4. Where it appeared that testatrix’s pastor was executor and legatee and that a certain* church and hospital in which he was interested were beneficiaries under the will, which had been given int

Judges: Frazeb, Frazer, Holt, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter, Stewart

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.