Case ID: mo_21/html/0017-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Scott, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

St. Louis Hospital Association, Plaintiff in Error, vs. Wegman, Administrator of Williams, Defendant in Error.
    1. Same case, 19 Bio. Rep. 609, and Northcutt v. Northmtt, 20 Bio. Rep. 266, affirmed.
    
      Error to St. Louis Circuit Court.
    
    This was a proceeding commenced in the St. Louis Circuit Court to establish the will of John Williams, previously rejected in the Probate Court. It is the same case reported in 19 Mo. Rep. 609, and there reversed for an insufficient finding of the facts.
    After it was remanded, it was again tried by the court without a jury, and the following facts found- in regard to the circumstances attending the execution of the will: “That Williams being too feeble from illness to write his name, P. B. Garesche, at the request and in the presence of Williams, wrote the name, “John Williams,” and the words, “his mark,” leaving a blank for the mark, for the purpose and with the intention on the part of said Williams that he should affix his mark thereto ; and that Williams, in fulfillment of such intention, did accordingly make his mark in the blank left therefor between the Christian and the sirname, designating the same as a signing or execution of the paper by him, and thereupon did acknowledge the mark as his signature, and did publish and declare the paper signed as and for his last will and testament,” &c.
    The will was attested by Garesche and another as witnesses,, but the attestation of Garesche omitted to state that he wrote the name of the testator at his request. Upon these facts, the Circuit Court refused to establish the will.
    
      A. J. P. Garesche, for plaintiff in error.
   Scott, Judge.

It appears that the testator’s- name was-signed to this will at his request. The case, then, is within the words of the statute. This subject was considered at the lasfc term of this court at Jefferson city, in tbe case of Northcutt v. Northcutt. It was there held that the cross could only be regarded as a signing within the statute, when 'that mark alone was used; that if, in addition to the cross, the name of the testator was subscribed, at his request, then it was a case within the statute. The other judges concurring, the judgment will be affirmed.