In re Estate of Wright, 60 P.2d 434 (Cal. 1936).


Facts: Wright (T) died 16 months after executing a will that devised a house, personal belongings, and money to his friend, Charlotte Hindmarch, who was named as the executrix. T also devised a house to his daughter, his interest in an estate to his granddaughter, and one dollar to his grandson and several other people. T's daughter contested the will. During the proceeding, testimony established that Mrs. Thomas, a notary public who had known T for many years, had prepared T's will. Mrs. Thomas and both witnesses to the will testified that T was of unsound mind when he executed the will. Other acquaintances and relatives also testified that T was not of sound mind, based on T's peculiarities, his drinking, a head injury he once suffered, a serious operation he had several years before his death, and isolated idiosyncratic acts. The petition for admission of the will to probate was denied on the ground of testamentary incapacity. The executrix appeals.

Issue: Is evidence of a testator's isolated peculiar acts and unusual lifestyle, without evidence of insanity, hallucinations, or delusions, sufficient to deny probate of his will?

Holding: No. Judgment Reversed.

Analysis: Evidence of testator's peculiarities based upon a few isolated acts held insufficient to justify denial of probate of will on ground of testamentary incapacity where there was no evidence that testator suffered from settled insanity, hallucinations, or delusions, or that he was unable to transact his business. Mental derangement sufficient to invalidate a will must be insanity of such broad character as to establish mental incompetency generally, or some specific and narrower form of insanity under which testator is victim of some hallucination or delusion, and such abnormality of mind must have had a direct influence on testamentary act. Lastly, Sanity being presumed, one contesting will has burden of proving that testator was of unsound mind when executing will.