Thereupon, the will having been read, paragraph by paragraph, the decedent and the witnesses duly executed it.
The burden of proving undue influence, of course, rests upon the person or persons charging undue influence, and, as was said in the case of Schuchhart v. Schuchhart, in the fourth syllabi, 62 Eq. 710, 49 Atl. 485: "When undue influence is claimed to be established by inference from certain facts proved, and, upon all the facts proved, an equally justifiable inference may be drawn that the will executed was what testator would have made under the circumstances, the burden on contestants is not supported." See also In re Richter's Will, 89 N. J. Eq. 162.
The inference which the contestants would have the Court draw from the facts is that the decedent intended to die intestate, so that her property would go to her children equally, and that her objection to making a will that night indicated her desire to die intestate, for she knew that her end was near and believed that if the making of the will were put off until the next day she would be dead and dead intestate.
This is an inference which may be drawn from the facts, but an equally justifiable inference is that the decedent had the all-too-common disinclination to draw a will; that she sought to shirk the responsibility of deciding what disposition to make of her property, to avoid making and executing a will; that when brought face to face with her responsibility she yielded to the advice and suggestions of her friends, and, although originally preferring not to make the will, determined to discharge her responsibility and make the will. In no other way can the statement of the decedent that she wanted to tie up the house, so the children could not spend it, be reconciled. That remark indicated that the decedent had aroused herself to the task of making her will, had overcome her disinclination, determined to perform the duty of making a will and had considered the question of the disposition of her property.
It is true that others made the suggestion as to what the decedent wanted to do with the property, and I am inclined to think that everyone in the room knew from talking with the decedent that she wanted to leave her property as she actually did leave it, although there is no direct testimony on this point, but the remark about preventing the children from spending the property was the product of the decedent's own mind; she initiated the remark, and thereby revealed her state of mind, both as to the matter of making a will at all and as to how she wanted her property to go. And it is not strange that she wanted the property to go in this way, for she knew it was her grandchildren's home (and we all know the wonderful love that grandparents have for grandchildren); she knew that they could not depend upon a father for support and upbringing and that their mother was the breadearner. Her own children were grown up, married, most of them, and so far as the record shows not to need of assistance. That the devise of the house to the grandchildren is a natural, normal one, is emphasized by her disposition of the residue of her estate, for, having taken care of her grandchildren, assured them of a home during their minority at least, she proceeded to give to her children everything else that she had; and I am inclined to think she believed that the residue of the estate would be much larger than it actually is; that the return she would get from the estate of Timothy Arnold would be larger than it actually was.