Filed Date: 12/15/1884
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/3/2024
I find, though with some hesita tion, that the paper here propounded for probate, was duly executed by this decedent as her will. Mr. A. W. French swears that he signed it as an attesting witness; that he saw the testatrix sign it, and saw it signed also by his fellow subscribing witness, who is now dead. This was more than thirty years ago. It is not singular, therefore, that the particular circumstances surrounding the transaction no longer remain in Mr. French’s memory. As to whether the decedent declared the paper to be her last will, or was silent on that subject; and as to whether she formally requested the witnesses to act as such or failed to do so, he has no recollection whatever. Upon this state of facts, there being no cause for suspecting the validity of the paper propounded, I should unhesitatingly admit it to probate, if it contained a full attestation clause, reciting that it had been signed by the witnesses upon the decedent’s invitation, and that it had been declared by her to be her last will (see Rolla v. Wright, 2 Dem., 482; and cases cited).
The attestation clause falls short, however, of this completeness. It is in the following words : “ Signed and acknowledged by said Rhomelia M. Myers as her last will and testament in our presence; and signed by us in her presence.”
The words italicised, when read in the light of certain portions of the testimony of Mr. French, justify me in holding that, when he and the other subscribing witness signed the attestation clause, they must have acted in compliance with a virtual request of the decedent, that they should thus participate in the
Unless, therefore, the contestant wishes to urge some objections to the validity of this paper, other than those which relate to the validity of its execution, it must be admitted to probate.