Succession of Davis
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., April 22, 1971 247 So. 2d 406; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., June 2, 1969 223 So. 2d 702; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., March 24, 1952 57 So. 2d 795; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., June 11, 1931 135 So. 77; La., May 15, 1875 27 La. 414
Succession of Davis, 1 Teiss. 284 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1904).
Opinion text
DUFOUR, J. The widow of the deceased contests his will on the ground that he was of unsound mind, and had been so for years. Much testimony has been adduced pro and con to show his condition of mind generally; that he was very aged, feeble minded and forgetful at times is shown, that he was not lucid at the time the will was made is not shown. The widow herself recognized his sanity by suing him shortly before his death for separation, and her attorney, then and now took him, with his attorney to draw money at his bank to pay counsel fees. These acts more eloquently than testimony speak as to those parties,belief in the sanity, of the testator. Sanity is presumed and the burden of proof is on the attacking party. Partial insanity does not make invalid a will made during a lucid interval, and the record fails to convince us that the testator did not fully understand his act and appreciate its effects. 35 An. 865-32 An. 1056. Without further review of the testimony, we state as our conclusion that the will must stand. Judgment affirmed.