This is a story about a man called John Banks, his mental health, his battle with his epilepsy, and his wish for who should inherit his estate in his will.
Banks v Goodfellow – explainer
John Banks suffered with epilepsy and serious mental health problems for years. This was in the Victorian era. He’d been kept in a lunatic asylum for part of his life.
Afterwards he still had fixed beliefs that weren’t true. He thought he was being hunted and harmed — not just by a real person, but by “devils or evil spirits” he believed were “visibly present.”
One belief focused on a man called Featherstone Alexander: John Banks’ nemesis in life. Banks had a strong hatred of him, and even after Alexander died, Banks still believed Alexander was “pursu[ing] and molest[ing] him.”
Despite these problems John Banks had lucid periods and calmer spells in which he could deal with ordinary business. In December 1863, Banks made a will leaving everything to his niece, Margaret Goodfellow, who lived with him. But Banks had other relatives too.
After Banks died, a nephew also called John Banks — the son of Banks’s half-brother Jacob Banks — challenged the will. If the will was invalid, John Junior would inherit everything as heir-at-law.
The legal test
The court said something important: having a mental disorder doesn’t automatically cancel your will. The real question is whether the person could make a genuine decision at the time.
They set out the key ideas behind testamentary capacity: the will-maker must
(One) understand they are making a will and what it does;
(Two) understand the rough extent of what they own; and
(Three) understand the people who might reasonably expect to benefit.
And then comes the famous “limb 4” idea — that the decision must not be driven by illness.
The court put it like this: “no disorder of the mind shall poison his affections” or “pervert his sense of right.” And: “that no insane delusion shall influence his will… and bring about a disposal… which… would not have been made.”
Applying the test to John Banks’ will
So how did that apply to the will? The court accepted he had delusions — including the belief about Featherstone Alexander and the “evil spirits.” But the judges focused on whether those beliefs actually affected the will.
They noted Featherstone Alexander was “in no way connected with the testator,” and the delusions had not — and could not realistically — explain the gift to Margaret.
On the key days in December 1863, witnesses described Banks discussing practical matters: asking a lawyer to prepare the will, confirming what he wanted, reading documents, and managing money and rent issues.
The will itself was straightforward: everything to the niece who lived with him. So the court upheld the will.
The lesson is simple: the law looks for a will made by the person, not by a delusion — and only invalidates it when the illness poisons the decision.
