Muller v. St. Louis Hospital Ass'n

1. Contested Will: will or no will, a question eor the jury. The question of will or no will is one for the jury, under proper instructions from the court; and where the law of the case is declared with substantial accuracy, the verdict of the jury will not be disturbed by an appellate court. 2. --. Where a will is made in favor of a religious institution, by one in extremis, and who died in the hospital of such institution, the instrument being drawn by one acting as chaplain in the hospital, where there is evidence from which want of sound and disposing mind, or the existence of undue influence which destroyed the freedom of the will, might fairly be inferred, and where, without apparent reason, the will ignores a natural heir and misdescribes the testator’s nearest relatives, a verdict against such a will will not be set aside as against evidence. 3. -: -: evidence. In such case, slight circumstances may furnish sufficient legal warrant for an inference against the will; and if the jury draw such an inference, it is fatal to the will. 4. --: undue influence : burden of proof. In a case of a contested will an instruction which takes from the jury the question of undue influence, or which tells the jury that in case of doubt they must find in favor of the will, is erroneous. 5. -: former wild as evidence. In such an action, declarations of the testator contained in a will executed three years before, are ; competent as tending to show the testator’s intention at that time. 6. Impeachment of a Witness. On cross-examination, a witness may be compelled to answer any questions which tend to test his credibility, or to shake his credit by injuring his character, however irrelevant to the facts in issue, or however disgraceful the answer may be to himself, except where the -answer would expose him to a criminal charge.* 7. A Verdict held not void for Uncertainty. In a proceeding under the statute contesting the validity of a will, the verdict was as follows: “We, the jury, find the paper read in evidence is not the will of Martin Muller, deceased.” A former will of the deceased as well as the one in controversy had been read in evidence.' But the pleadings distinctly designated the instrument under which defendants claimed as the one controverted, and the instructions referred specifically to that one and no other. Held, that in view of these facts, there could be no doubt which will was meant by the jury. The verdict was, therefore, not void for uncertainty.

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.