Case Title: Batchelor v. Powers

Citation: 348 So. 2d 776

Docket Number: 

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1977-08-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
348 So. 2d 776 (1977) George M. BATCHELOR et al., v. Estate of Robert Burney POWERS, Deceased. No. 49520. Supreme Court of Mississippi. August 3, 1977. Edward L. Cates, Jackson, Everette Verhine, Vicksburg, for appellants. Dabney & Dabney, Lucius B. Dabney, Jr., Wesley R. Lominick, Jr., Vicksburg, for appellee. Before PATTERSON, SMITH and LEE, JJ. SMITH, Justice, for the Court: Letters of administration were granted to Alice Powers Smith, upon the estate of her brother, Robert Burney Powers, deceased, by the Chancery Court of Warren County. Several months afterward, a document, purporting to be the last will and testament of Robert Burney Powers was offered for probate by appellants, George M. Batchelor and others. This document was entirely typewritten, signed by Robert Burney Powers and bore the certificate of a notary public that it had been "sworn to and subscribed before me" followed by the signature and seal of the notary. The validity of the document as a will was challenged by the administratrix upon the ground that it was neither wholly written and subscribed by the testator nor attested by two or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator as required by Mississippi Code Annotated section 91-5-1 (1972). The chancery court declined to admit the document to probate as the will of Powers and this appeal resulted. The single question presented is whether a document purporting to be a will and not wholly written and subscribed by the testator must be signed by two attesting witnesses. It is undisputed in this case that the document proffered was neither wholly written and subscribed by the alleged testator nor signed by two attesting witnesses. It is argued that the term "attesting witnesses" as used in the Mississippi statute does not contemplate nor require that such witnesses sign the will. It appears from a review of the numerous cases in Mississippi dealing with will contests over the years that this Court has used interchangeably the terms "attesting" witness and "subscribing" witness. Moreover, the word "attest" is defined in Webster's New International Dictionary (2d ed. 1950) as (1) to bear witness to; to certify; to affirm to be true or genuine; specif., to witness and authenticate by signing as a witness. The word "attestation" is defined as the formal authentication *777 of an act or instrument by a subscribing witness or an official. Ballentine's Law Dictionary (2d ed. 1948) gives the following definitions of the term "attest": Moreover, it appears to be the general rule although there is some authority to the contrary, that the word "attestation" includes not only the mental act of observation, but also the manual one of subscription. The view entertained by this Court in regard to this matter is reflected in Seab v. Seab, 203 So. 2d 478 (Miss. 1967), a case in which the Court dealt with an instrument purporting to be the will of Howard A. Seab. The Court stated: A statement of the simple but effective requirement is stated in Fatheree v. Lawrence, 33 Misc. 585 (1857), a case cited by appellants as follows: The history of will contests in Mississippi supports the view that the requirements that there be two attesting witnesses to a will and, moreover, that it be attested by them in the presence of the testator, and that such attestation be evidenced by the affixation of their signatures to the document, are indispensable safeguards of the integrity of testamentary documents. The question is discussed in 79 Am.Jur.2d Wills section 313 (1975): The chancery court correctly denied probate to the instrument offered in this case which was neither wholly written and subscribed by the testator nor attested by two witnesses in the presence of the testator. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., INZER, P.J., and ROBERTSON, SUGG, WALKER, BROOM and LEE, JJ., concur.