Idiots are wholly incapable of executing a will, whether the defect of the understand ing is congenital or accidental ; but imbecil ity of mind alone is not incapacity, unless it amounts to a total deprivation of understand ing; Potts v. House, 6 Ga. 324, 50 Am. Dec. 329. Lunatics are incapable of executing a last will and testament, except during such a lucid interval as allows the exercise of mem ory and judgment. It must be an absolute, but not necessarily a perfect, restoration, to reason and reflection, and not a mere tem porary remission ; 3 Bro. C. C. 441; 3 Add. Eccl. 79 ; Whart. & St. Med. Jur. § 255 ; Lee v. Scudder, 31 N. J. Eq. 633 ; Brown v. Rig gin, 94 III. 560; Stewart's Ex'r v. Lispenard, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 255 ; 1 Redfield, Wills 107, 120. But mere weakness of understanding is not sufficient to invalidate a will, if the tes tator is capable of comprehending the ob ject in view ; Abraham v. Wilkins, 17 Ark. 292. Nor as a matter of law is a testator of unsound mind, if he mistakenly believed that his relatives had mistreated him, and therefore made no provision for them in his will ; Estate of Carpenter, 94 Cal. 406, 29 Pac. 1101.
Moral debasement is not of itself neces sarily insanity amounting to testamentary in capacity ; Mayo v. Jones, 78 N. C. 402; nor is mere moral insanity unless accompanied by insane delusions ; Boardman v. Woodman, 47 N. H. 120 ; the legal test with respect to such capacity not disorder of the feelings and propensities, but of the intellect, which is delusion ; In re Forman's Will, 54 Barb. (N. Y.) 274; and the essence of an insane de lusion is that it has no basis in reason therefore cannot be dispelled by it ; In re Tracy, 11 N. Y. St. Rep. 103 ; but mere preju dice, however unreasonable, or a mistake of fact, however absurd, Is not an Insane delu sion ; 2 Lack. Leg. N. 43 ; nor is a mistaken belief respecting a persou's character; In re Lang's Will, 9 Misc.' 521, 30 N. Y. Supp. 388.
Delusions are only to be considered so far as they concern the person to whom they re late ; Ballantine v. Proudfoot, 62 Wis. 216, 22 N. W. 392 ; Potter v. Jones, 20 Or. 239, 25 Pac. 7E9, 12 L. R. A. 161. See In re White, 121 N. Y. 406, 24 N. E. 935; unless they are insane delusions ; Brown v. Ward, 53 Md. 376, 36 Am. Rep. 422. Belief in Spiritualism does not constitute incapacity to make a will ; Brown v. Ward, 53 Md. 376, 36 Am. Rep. 422 ; In re Spencer, 96 Cal. 448, 31 Pac. 453 ; McClary v. Stull, 44 Neb. 175, 62 N. W. 501; In re Halbert's Will, 15 Misc. 308, 37 N. Y. Supp. 757; Whipple v. Eddy, 161 Ill. 114, 43 N. E. 789; especially if the views held thereon had nothing to do with making the will ; id.; nor does a belief in witchcraft ; Addington v. Wilson, 5 Ind. 137, 61 Am. Dec.
81; Lee's Heirs v. Lee's Ex'r, 4 McC. (S. C.) 183, 17 Am. Dec. 722; nor moral insanity ; In re Jones, 5 'Misc. 199, 25 N. Y. Supp. 109; nor partial unsoundness ; L. R. 5 Q. B. 549 ; Reynolds v. Root, 62 Barb. (N. Y.) 250; nor advanced age, nor enfeebled condition ; Horn v. Pullman, 72 N. Y..269; nor failure of mem ory alone ; unless it be total or extend to the members of his family or property; 4 Kent 510; if the testator comprehends the nature and extent of his property and the nature of the claims of those he is excluding, he is competent ; L. R. 5 Q. B. 549 ; Meeker v. Meeker, 75 Ill. 260; L. R. 3 P. & D. 64; Con verse's Ex'r v. Converse, 21 Vt. 168, 52 Am. Dec. 58 ; Martin v. Thayer, 37 W. Va. 38, 16 S. E. 489; Tucker v. Sandidge, 85 Va. 546, 8 S. E. 650 ; Howell v. Taylor, 50 N. J. Eq. 428, 26 Atl. 566; Prentis v. Bates, 88 Mich. 567, 50 N. W. 637 ; In re Estate of Douglass, 162 Pa. 567, 29 Atl. 715; Estate of Carpenter, 94 Cal. 406, 29 Pac. 1101; Ledwith v. Claffey, 18 App. Div. 115, 45 N. Y. Supp. 612 ; Berry v. Trust Co., 96 Md. 45, 53 Atl. 720 ; Todd v. Fenton, 66 Ind. 25 ; Martin v. Bowdern, 158 Mo. 379, 59 S. W. 227; Mullen v. Johnson, 157 Ala. 262, 47 South. 584.
The use of narcotics by a testatrix, with a cancerous disease, raises a presumption of absence of testamentary capacity ; Mullen v. Johnson, 157 Ala. 262, 47 South. 584.
Moral-medical insanity, manifested in jeal ousy, anger and hate, however violent or un intentional, will not defeat a will unless an emanation of a delusion; Taylor v. McClin tock, 87 Ark. 243, 112 S. W. 405.
A finding that a testator was insane at any time prior to the making of the will does not support a presumption that the insanity continued to the making of the will, unless it is also found that the insanity is habitual and fixed ; Johnson v. Armstrong, 97 Ala. 731, 12 South. 72 ; Manley's Ex'r v. Staples, 65 Vt. 370, 26 Atl. 630. When It appears that the will is the direct offspring of monomania it should be held invalid, notwithstanding the general soundness of the testator ; Potts v. House, 6 Ga. 324, 50 Am. Dec. 329 ; Town shend v. Townshend, 7 Gill (Md.) 10 ; Boyd v. Eby, 8 Watts (Pa.) 70. See, also, 6 Moore, P. C. 341, 349 ; 12 Jurist 947, where Lord Brougham contends for the extreme notion that every person laboring under any form of partial insanity or monomania is incompetent to execute a valid will, because the mind be ing one and entire, if unsound in any part it is an unsound mind. This extreme view will scarcely gain final acceptance in the courts; Whart. & St. Med. Jur. § 18, contra.