
    
      In re SAUNDERS’ ESTATE.
    1. Wills — Insane Persons — Belief in Spirituaiism Not Evidence of Insanity.
    Evidence that testatrix, a ' strong-willed, vigorous, capable woman, believed in and practiced spiritualism, and had confidence in spiritualistic communications, was not evidence of insanity sufficient to take to the jury the question, of her sanity.
    
    2. Same — Undue Influence.
    Evidence that testatrix was sometimes comforted and sometimes disturbed by her belief in spiritualistic communications, and that she sought spiritualistic counsel relative to her will, was insufficient to take to the jury the question of undue influence, in the absence of evidence that she was impelled to follow such communications blindly, that her free agency was destroyed, that the will resulted from such influences rather than from the exercise of her own mind, and that it was not her will.*
    Effect of belief in spiritualism upon testamentary capacity, sea note in 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 674.
    Error to Wayne; Perkins (Willis B.), J., presiding.
    Submitted April 6, 1926.
    (Docket No. 10.)
    Decided June 7, 1926.
    Harry Scott, executor, presented for probate the last will of Maria Saunders, deceased. The will was allowed in the probate court, and Joshua Saunders and others appealed to the circuit court. Judgment for proponent on a directed verdict. Contestants bring error.
    Affirmed.
    
      James II. Pound, for appellants.
    
      J. Walter Dohany and William A. Alfs, for appellee.
    
      
      Wills, 40 Cyc. p. 1012; 2Id., 40 Cyc. pp. 1144, 1148.
    
   Clark, J.

A verdict was directed sustaining the will of Mrs. Maria Saunders, and judgment was entered thereon.

Contestants have six assignments of error. They present one meritorious question, that the evidence adduced made issues of fact of testamentary capacity and of undue influence. The evidence on the first claimed issue was that Mrs. Saunders, a strong-willed, vigorous, capable woman, believed in and practiced spiritualism and had confidence in spiritualistic communications. This was not evidence of insanity. O’Dell v. Goff, 149 Mich. 152 (10 L. R. A. [N. S.] 989, 119 Am. St. Rep. 662).

Upon the other claimed issue there is evidence to the effect that testatrix was at times comforted and at other times disturbed by her belief in such communications, and some evidence that she sought spiritualistic counsel relative to her will. But there is no evidence that she had such extraordinary confidence in such communications, whether received through a medium or directly, as she believed, that she was impelled to follow them blindly, that her free agency was destroyed, that the will resulted from such influences rather than from the exercise of her own mind, that it was not her will. This' question is fully considered in the O’Dell Case and what is there said need not be repeated. The trial judge was right in holding that the evidence raised no question of fact for the jury.

Other matter presented by the assignments does not merit discussion.

Judgment affirmed.

Bird, C. J., and Sharpe, Snow, Steere, Fellows, Wiest, and McDonald, JJ., concurred.  