Case ID: us_1/html/0096-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Chief Justice,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hight v. Wilson.
    
      Execution of will.
    
    A will of real estate need not be under seal; nor suberibed by tbe witnesses to its execution.
    A will may be proved by other than the attesting witnesses ; and if proved by them, they need not all be called.
    This was a feigned issue to try the validity of a will, against the probate of which, a caveat had been entered in the register’s office. The plea was insanity in the testator; and evidence was given of habitual drunkenness, old age, weakness of body, shortness of memory, and a few incoherent expressions. The jury, however, in a very short time, gave a verdict for the plaintiff in the issue, who was the devisee in the will.
   The Chief Justice,

in his charge to the jury, informed them, 1st. That it was not necessary that a will, devising real estate in this commonwealth, should be sealed. 2d. Nor that all the subscribing witnesses should prove the execution. 3d. Nor that the proof of the will should be made by those who subscribed as witnesses. 4th. Nor that the will should be subscribed by the witnesses, 
      
      
         See Lewis v. Maris, post, 278. See also Hock v. Hock, 6 S. & R. 47; Eyster v. Young, 3 Yeates 511; Harrison v. Rowan, 3 W. C. C. 580; Rosseter v. Simmons, 6 S. & R. 452; Walmsley v. Read, 1 Yeates 87; Arndt v. Arndt, 1 S. & R. 256.
     
      
       See Irvin v. Deschampa, 11 W. N. C. 385.