Will—Testamentary Capacity—Intoxication.—A man temporarily overcome by a single debauch is, for the time being, of unsound mind, and has not testamentary capacity; so a person to whom intoxication has become such a habit that his intellect is disordered and he has lost the rational control of his mental faculties, is of unsound mind.

Will Contest.—Where the Questions of Unsoundness of Mind and Undue Influence are presented in the same ease, and in their consideration may overlap one the other, it has been said that as legal propositions they are to be kept distinct and apart. But considering the two issues together, it is noted that although mere weakness of intellect does not prove undue influence, yet it may be that in such feeble state, with the mind weakened by sickness, dissipation or age, the testator more readily and easily becomes the victim of the improper influences of those who see fit to practice upon him.

Will—Unreasonableness does not Vitiate.—The will of one having testamentary capacity cannot be avoided because unaccountably contrary to the common sense of the country. If not contrary to the law, it stands for the descent of his property, whether his reasons for it are good or bad, provided they are his own reasons, not influenced by the unlawful influence of others.

Will—Undue Influence.—There is a Distinction Between the Influence of a Lawful Belation and that of an unlawful relation. A lawful influence, such as that arising from legitimate family and social relations, must be allowed to produce its natural results, even in influencing the execution of a will. However great the influence thus generated, there is no taint of unlawfulness in it; nor can there be any presumption of its unlawful exercise merely because it is known to have existed and to have manifestly operated on the testator's mind as a reason for his testamentary disposition. It is only when such influence is exerted over the very act of devising, preventing the will from being truly the testator’s act, that the law condemns it as vicious.

Will—Undue Influence.—While the Natural Influence of a Lawful Belation must be lawful, even where affecting testamentary dispositions, the natural or ordinary influence of an unlawful relation must be unlawful, in so far as it affects testamentary dispositions favorably to the unlawful relations and unfavorably to the lawful heirs. So, it would be doing violence to the morality of the law, and thus to the law itself, if courts should apply the rule recognizing the natural influence arising out of legitimate relationship to unlawful as well as to lawful relations; and thereby make them both equal, in this regard at least, which is contrary to their very nature.

Maxim.—No One Shall Derive any Profit, Through the Law, by the influence of an unlawful action or relation.

Wills—Undue Influence.—If the Law Always Suspects and Inexorably Condemns undue influence, and presumes it from the nature of the transaction, in the legitimate relations of attorney, guardian and trustee, much more sternly should it deal with unlawful relations, where they are, in their nature, relations of influence over the kind of act under investigation. In their legitimate operation, trust positions of influence are respected; but where apparently used for selfish advantage they are viewed with deep suspicion; and it would be strange if unlawful relations should be more favorably regarded.

Will—Undue Influence.—General Cases and Authorities, as to what does and what does not constitute undue influence, are inapplicable in a case where the influence charged originated and was exercised under an unlawful relation.

. Will—Insane Delusion.—If a Person Persistently Believes Supposed Facts which have no real existence except in his perverted imagination, and against all evidence and probability, and conducts himself, however logically, upon the assumption of their existence, he is, as far as they are concerned, under a morbid delusion; and delusion in that sense is insanity. So, if a testator labored under such a delusion in respect to his wife and family connections, who would naturally have been the objects of his testamentary bounty, and the court can see that the dispository provisions of his alleged will were or might have been caused or affected by the delusion, the instrument is not his will.

Will—Evidence of Undue Influence.—Upon the issue of undue influence in the execution of wills, the evidence must often be indirect and circumstantial. Very seldom does it occur that a direct act of influence is patent; persons intending to control the actions of another, especially as to wills, do not proclaim the intent. The existence of the influence must generally be gathered from circumstances, such as whether the testator formerly intended a different disposition; whether he was surrounded by those having an object to accomplish, to the exclusion of others; whether he was of such weak mind as to be subject to influence; whether the instrument is such as would probably be urged upon him by those around him; whether they are benefited to the exclusion of formerly intended beneficiaries.

Will—Intoxication and Undue Influence.—The testator in this case had been a prominent and respected citizen, but for some years before his death he became an habitual drunkard, and after becoming such his whole being changed with respect to his affection for his wife and children, as well also in his personal habits and his social nature and disposition. During this period he became acquainted, while taken away from home, with a woman whom he permitted to act as his nurse; and who subsequently obtained a control over him, to the exclusion of his family, and so that he never again returned to his wife or children. Six months before his death he executed a will wherein this woman was made residuary legatee, and for nearly all his estate; his wife and children were expressly excluded by the instrument. They contested the probate of the will, and tendered as issues unsoundness of mind, and undue influence exercised by the residuary legatee. The court found in favor of the contestants upon both issues, and denied the probate of the will.