Kustus v. Hager

Citations

• 269 Pa. 103
• 112 A. 45
• 1920 Pa. LEXIS 775

Syllabus

<p>Wills — Probate —■ Testamentary capacity — Undue influence — Presumption — Meretricious relations — Evidence.</p> <p>1. There is no essential inconsistency between a finding of testamentary capacity, and a finding that testator’s mind was to some extent weakened by his excesses.</p> <p>2. Ordinarily a presumption of undue influence arises where a testator’s mind is shown to have become weak, and his estate or a large part thereof, is given to one with whom he is having meretricious relations.</p> <p>3. In order to avoid the will of one possessing testamentary capacity, the undue influence alleged, whether arising from meretricious relations or otherwise, must be operative upon and control the mind of testator at the time and in the very act of making his will.</p> <p>4. While ordinarily the question whether it did then operate upon and control the mind of testator would be a matter for the jury to decide, nevertheless, if it is clear a verdict against the will could not conscientiously be sustained, it is the duty of the court to so rule as a matter of law.</p> <p>5. Generally speaking, less capacity is required to make a valid will than to transact ordinary business.</p> <p>6. Less business judgment is required in making a valid ydU than in making a gift inter vivos, for in the former case testator’s actual and possible needs do not have to be considered.</p> <p>7. Where it clearly appears testator performed every business act properly, a presumption arises that he is capable of making a will.</p> <p>8. WUtere testator determines to give the whole of his estate to one person, a competency to distribute is not the test of his mental capacity.</p> <p>9. A will is not unnatural which gives a large portion or all of testator’s estate to one who has been kind and helpful to him, especially if those who would take under the intestate laws have not themselves been kind and helpful.</p>