Craighead v. Alexander

Wills; Probate Court; Appeal and Error; Bill oe Exceptions; Caveat. 1. A proceeding in a probate court is not a proceeding in equity, and final orders therein are only reviewable in accordance with the practice at common law. 2. It is the safer practice to bring up to the appellate court, all evidence taken in hearings in probate, whether they are special proceedings or not, by regular bill of exceptions. (Citing Willcins & Oo. v. Hillman, 8 App. D. C. 469.) 3. Allegations of fraud in a caveat to a will alleged to have been practised upon the caveators in procuring from them a waiver of citation and service of process, made to excuse their failure to file the caveat within three months after the probate of the will, as far as it is a will of personal estate, are insufficient for the purpose (even if the rule in respect to the operation of the statute of limitations be applicable), where it appears from the caveat that the fraud alleged to have been perpetrated upon them was discovered immediately, and no fact is alleged from which it can be inferred that the alleged mental incapacity of the testatrix, or the undue influence alleged to have been practised upon her, were fraudulently concealed from the caveators, or were not as well known to them when the will was admitted to probate, as when the caveat was filed; and where it also appears that the caveat was filed a year, lacking a day, after the probate of the will. 4. A decree of the probate court directing a petition to set aside the probate of a will, to stand as a caveat to the will as a will of real estate, is not a final order, and as such appealable, nor is it such an interlocutory order as can be appealed from as a matter of right under see. 226, D. C. Code [31 Stat. at L. 1225, chap. 854], providing for appeals to this court (following Dugan v. Horthcutt, 7 App. D. C. 351) ; and an appeal by the executors from such a decree will be dismissed. 5. Quare, — whether the receipt by a legatee of a legacy under a will estops him from maintaining a caveat to the will on the ground of mental incapacity of the testatrix and undue influence practised upon her; and also as to the effect of an offer by him to return the legacy upon his right to maintain such a caveat.

Hearing oil cross appeals from an order of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, sitting as a probate court; one of the appeals being by petitioners who sought to have waivers of citation signed by them set aside for fraud, and the probate of a will vacated; the other appeal being by the executors under the will from so much of the order as directed the petition to stand as a caveat to the will as a will of real estate. The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows: These two appeals have been heard together, as they relate to the same order. Harriet V. A. Craighead died July 23, 1909, leaving a will disposing of an estate valued at $60,000, and naming Alice W. Craighead and Thomson H. Alexander executors. She was survived by three children, James B., Jesse V. A. and Alice W. Craighead. By the terms of the will $5,000 was bequeathed to James, $4,000 to Jesse V. A., $1,000 to James B. Craighead, a son of Jesse; the residue of the estate was bequeathed to her daughter, Alice W. Craighead. The will, and petition for its probate, were filed September 16, 1909. Citation having been waived by James B. and Jesse V. A. Craighead, the will was admitted to probate September 17, 1909. Jesse V. A. Craighead resided in the city and State of New York, and James B. in the city of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania. On September 16, 1910, they joined in a petition filed in the supreme court of the District, holding the probate court. This petition alleged substantially: That petitioners were advised by letter of Thomson IT. Alexander that the will would be opened and read in his office in Washington, on September 15, 1909, and were invited to be present. That when said will had been read, petitioners were requested to sign certain papers consenting to the probate of the will, without further notice, being advised by said Alexander that the signing of the papers was a mere formality, and for the purpose of saving the expense of citation and publication. That said Alexander and Alice W. Craighead also advised petitioners that they were prepared and desired to make immediate settlements with them of their legacies as soon as the will should be probated; and that the petition for probate would be presented the next morning — September 16 — at 11 o’clock a. m. That petitioners were requested to be at the office of said Alexander at 2 o’clock on the same day to receive the sums bequeathed to them. That at the time of reading said will, they were advised by Alice W. Craighead that the same had been composed and written by the testatrix in her own handwriting, and without assistance or suggestion of anyone. That petitioners were so surprised and shocked at the unusual and unnatural discrimination made in said will, and being urged to close the matter at once, and being without the advice of counsel, they signed the papers presented to them. That after consideration that night, they became convinced that said instrument was not executed by the testatrix of her own free will, and determined to oppose the probate thereof. That they went to the probate court on September 16 at 11 o’clock a. m., — the hour at which they had been advised the will would be presented for probate, — for the purpose of protesting against the said probate; but, upon reaching said court, they were advised by the said Alexander that the papers had been presented at ten o’clock, the will admitted to probate, and that it was too late for them to make any objection thereto. That they were further advised that there was nothing-left for them to do but to accept the settlement on the terms named in the wdll, and requested to keep the appointment on that day for 2 o’clock for the purpose of closing the transaction. That James B. Craighead became further convinced of the invalidity of said will by reason of the efforts of the executors to force petitioners to accept an immediate payment of their legacies, and positively declined to receive the sum of his legacy. That Jesse Y. A. Craighead, having been persuaded that it was too late for him to make objection to said will, and that there was nothing left for him to do but accept the said legacy, and not having been given full opportunity to consider said matter, not having been advised then, as he is now, of the mental condition of testatrix at the time of the execution of said will, and of other facts showing that she was under the complete domination and control of said Alice W. Craighead, — received the said sum of $5,000 from said executors, and signed such papers as they demanded. That he now tenders himself ready and willing, and offers, to return to said executors the money so received. That testatrix was born June 27, 1827, and was seventy-seven and one-half years old at the time of the execution of said will. That for several years prior thereto and until her death she was a confirmed invalid, weak in body and mind, and easily dominated and controlled by anyone who came in contact with her. That they have only recently discovered that at the time of the execution of said will, — namely, November 4, 1904, — testatrix, being then an invalid, physically and mentally, was completely under the domination, suggestion, and control of said Alice W. Craighead, and that the said will was prepared at the suggestion and under the direction of the said Alice, as petitioners are advised and believe, and was thereafter rewritten by testatrix in her own handwriting, under the direction and at the request of said Alice; and was not the last will and testament of said Harriet Y. A. Craighead. That at the time of her death testatrix was possessed of securities, cash, and household goods of the value of $59,440.54, and of one piece of real estate in the District of Columbia of the value of $1,500, most of which was received from the estate of the father of petitioners, and said estate remains in the hands of said executors, undistributed save as before set forth. That they consented to the probate of said will, under the false and fraudulent misrepresentations made to them, as hereinbefore set forth; and they now pray that said probate be set aside, and they be granted leave to file this caveat to said will upon the grounds set forth, which have only recently come to the full knowledge of petitioners. The petition concludes with the following averments: (1) That said will was not executed in the manner and form required by law. (2) That at the date of said will, testatrix was not of sound and disposing mind and memory, and not capable of executing a valid deed, or contract. (3) That the execution of said will, if executed at all, was procured by the undue influence, importunities, and persuasions of said Alice W. Craighead. (4) That the execution of said will, if executed at all, was procured by fraud and deceit practised upon testatrix by said Alice W. Craighead and Thomson II. Alexander, or some other person or persons. The prayer of the petition is that the decree admitting the will to probate be set aside, and proper issues touching the execution of said will be framed for trial by jury. In response to a rule to show cause why the prayer of the petitioners should not be granted, the executors filed an answer denying all the allegations of fraud, undue influence, incompetency, etc. They plead the payment to Jesse V. A. Craighead and its receipt by him as an estoppel. They also claim that the only questions raised are questions of law, and should be determined upon the pleadings. The court heard witnesses in open court upon the issue of fraud relating to the procurement of the waivers of citation. That evidence, having been transcribed, was ordered by the court to be filed with the register of wills as part of the record in this cause. There was no bill of exceptions. On a hearing on the pleadings and the evidence aforesaid, on May 2, 1911, the court entered a decree denying so much of the petition as seeks to set aside said waivers of citation, and also to permit a caveat of the will as to personal property - but ordering the petition to stand as a caveat to the will as a will of real estate. Petitioners have appealed from the first parts of said order, aná ftie executes item 7\\d last ’past.