Wilbur v. Wilbur
Citations
- 138 Ill. 446
- 27 N.E. 701
Syllabus
<p>1. Wmns—undue influence. While it is true that the undue influence which will invalidate a will must be present and exercised over the mind of the testator at the time the will was made, yet it is competent to prove previous conduct of the one charged with procuring it to be made, as tending to show his influence over the testator at the time of its execution.</p> <p>2. Where a will was contested in chancery on the ground of undue influence by a son of the testator, as well as upon the ground of want of capacity to make a valid will, it was held, that proof which tended to-show anxiety by the son to have his father make a will, and that he desired such will to be favorable to his interest, taken in connection with evidence that on the day the will was executed he took the testator from his home in a village to a justice of the peace, a distance of three miles in the country, where the will was written, and that he was-present and assisted in some degree in its execution, was clearly competent on the issue of undue influence.</p> <p>3. Same—reading before signing-—evidence admissible on issue of fraud and undue influence. While the reading of a will to a testator before signing the same is not necessarily essential to its validity, an omission to do so may strongly tend to show that it was not understood, by the testator, or that it was the will of another rather than of himself. On the issue of fraud and undue influence in procuring a will to be executed, all that was said and done by the parties present at the time of the execution is-relevant and proper.</p> <p>4. Same—when set aside—testator not understanding the contents. Where a will is sought to be set aside on the grounds of a want of a sound and disposing mind, fraud and undue influence, if it is shown that the testator did not know its contents because of the fraud or undue influence of others, or because his mental condition was such that he could not intelligently understand it, the will may be avoided
Judges: Wilkin
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Miller v. LivingstoneUtah Supreme Court· 1906-12-22· cited 41×
- Merchants National Bank v. FrazierAppellate Court of Illinois· 1946-06-14· cited 37×
- Wilson v. ClayburghIllinois Supreme Court· 1905-06-23· cited 25×
- England v. FawbushIllinois Supreme Court· 1903-10-26· cited 21×
- Pepe v. CaputoIllinois Supreme Court· 1951-01-18· cited 13×
- Downey v. LawleyIllinois Supreme Court· 1941-06-17· cited 8×
- Walton v. YoreMissouri Court of Appeals· 1894-05-22· cited 8×
- Gagnon v. BurtonAppellate Court of Illinois· 1903-04-14· cited 5×
- Ashmore v. HawkinsIllinois Supreme Court· 1893-06-10· cited 1×
- Clayburgh v. WilsonAppellate Court of Illinois· 1905-02-10
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.