Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-08-17
or rHE suPREME COURT.
Opinions OF tsse Supreme COurt OF Tennes-
see, delivered at Jaeksons at the April


raAa' isSs. ss,-
RIP Mar and others Is rJshh Mari and others.
eaue is nov bas us second time It =uitfcrthe
PEosateoi Lse Ell Of g. l. AAaS des'a;el aS0A Sn s9e
upon trial saned . The pauths al eur last esn
in relation e lhe eses 70 te given bande Of
papers IA which iound a. may oe sen ~ tae FepoLs I
case snssa Assigned q supposed 70 se
sB.t h vou and t In manner satisfies
that il VISA paper not for, bat Fsatid BY him. or you
ars o1er ted the manner 81 keepinE ihal
il rsd sa PapsFs and AZ. 1.endsa y ha % operate
effect w, then viii ind for the aeienaan
again in reply quest BY tie Pantids ense' soehAsge
pate and iced il aon his vaIa papers befoFs hs csath,
thar TIE l presunes i IS his viii unless he rssoSsa a1
among valuable papers his lifetime it would be tAs NJ.
his will, before charged The Court rejected an sp
c.uld not have paper writing here IS his W ae
pepsrel IL aad Plaseit among his valuable papers 9f -
sas psooounsd Much dacuJs has been e ncd y The
Courts o. this state and these Of Aorh ne
sbat po M S9 iao vas saa snIes IL were sig1sd
kno9le ed before subscribing lhis act maze an
exception IN fayor OF wills Of his descr pion -he hrst
msat Is that shenRy scll shsii he toHEa smong lhe 81
Eale psrs eGs Of deceased p son, % shall nave
lodged the hands of son for "a a--e'pias,
nh s meant hy eaHE1e psrs No better ashalsoa' 1 %
perhaps given that they consist sf sseh S arr re-
garie By tesor preservation, and therefore
land savesohsataus for cirth-tlts Of ek
Any Others kept
care arcuiar person regarded enstraeed
hatdesepon This requirement. Is only intended as an IN
aad pepetnate the paper in question dspenaon o.
his property-Ihat he regards q As valuable
point require Of the staste, about
which there any Soutfovey ia TINS Coart all the Others
But he Courts have sosn pu roy ani hold syen
hes requirements al concur yet the paper may not Be vadA
Itis 'c thus found and cot every dPer
50 depoeilei aeoesgy, though may proper foTn-in
the hand Wrieng siinvd4 Sc II ss open taaAek on Va
grounds, such as that the estaior vas unsnnd
upOn ~ undue influence fad r ess or mat j.
er e{ assensd 70 y the dseeasel as eonpse ana ns
any extent 70 be "found among rs saae payers,
implies that must have been paae hsre p ms writer o. ~
his knowledge assent surTeptous by some other per
son and so deposited with aud puposs az the time,
should be his will Bat when all that IS done Is IN con
qures something than deo ns 70 revoke or deeAl T.
There be act dene Indicative Of change Of parpess
such canclian, destraet removal from the place
9ba nav bs- ioIEi Chief Justice But in Is Can,
Is 9il9 u rsfereacs TO Witness said: 1t has been
insisted thai scl ations Of admissible in law TO show
that the uhs had execu VALID but eass had been
cited to such shall not for the hrs time,
establish doctrine which would render useless the o.
making viii; for Il such syitenee were ansbe some Ness
would constantly brough forward 70 sasd me most solemn
Such 5ocrne would he not only in the highest degree neou
lut contrary to the first PTinPi Of eSence acorang
The case spppes The writing siyning himself AMI the
continued epo among his valuable ELECTS must haYe
sqnpa and efre witnesses Both
pubc and the latter mode IS eeraoy
death and only speak from that tine he can aier
destroy change It IN The one ass II can p ss sasS aa
Of mind for by simple removal from psce Of Deposit
place SHse 11s sIs 40 4 = fSun al his Death
But in case OF vitnesd will be eaneelled destroyed
Ahoorspkie via ii gny when lhe things Pe
serbed hy the statutes are done ie on scosnt o. e
men relation the place Of deposit the easy
Of rendering invalid exists as il must not only aesd y a
in.bis Tbi. change OF il ucien indication under
statute, Of mind 70 revoke or rather dspaess an eSn
II certainly not conclusive Of the paper that it Is the
form Of testament, perfect in All lis parts Wrter Agsa anu
prescribed. II r all that not be his will as oe
nav Re that be never ztendea IL to be will But
how is that % be known kind Of proofs on that
point Upon charge relation % that questions alone ex
iraei As matter Of law our DECISION this
Trpe coDpeept for the Jury in coming a conclusion up
question fact for the intent Is an important tc n
tnc what kind Of circumstance such as The general ras
prese such indicative Of the intention INA
the paper VII, and Others Rights depeLden
upon IA vaIidy wills should be carefully guarded a
not In both they questions Of title to P'op
appsar IN the j6iy Of the instrument that it incomplete
unnishe-no signed with attestng clauss but no witnesses
ai tbe nient Hat raper s6ouiI he anal disposition o.
his property, and tend 10 raise presumption ta II not nj
But what's the character extrne hiei
be had in determining the question fn.e1, Il
falling under the statute ana when rs
fully complied with Some OF these have been be'o
The declarations Of the party with reference the ParcuIa
paper wOuh BE- proper 70 Be eonsder but entitled 2 b. ver
little weight, without act showing intention Z
change what he had deliberately done, in iu compliance N
SiS~ thus shown settled purpose that such should
WILL there must he something mere than simple deeiarions
paper in his band writing and under has own control
n still permitted IL the proper deposit undsurbd
him until his Death This sw Preei the requisites Tor
u valid win hese acts all performed In strict con
formity can upon any proper principle 10 coun
md defeat them By words and unAo
II panied by aDy act
is not easy by what motives may he inhu
make such dsclAaohs 70 make Tor N
Sc writing o! another viii which was not carried Out
All points rest Ia the memory OF witnesses and ar
liable to be sundersood-they may have been done or sal
under some momenary nnnenee or uaaer A
deliberate acts Of writing the paper himself IN
l. ary FORM depong With other things Of value win u
act Of assembly before him, prescribing the elect IN ia
he doing afford safe ground Tor aseeAnin his Es
deliberate frustrated BY evidence Of loose and easu
declarations that he had no VIII or thai he wanted some one
any done to such purpose waieh va.
y " csSiv in bis mode Of dispo cf mins property
y. TIE statute, fotmed with 50 much care and y
were So would sgnaly feI to the PurPose
which itwas desig=sd
We will DOT say vrbaI declarations not admissible
evidence for some purposes In case Ike n
they looked to circumstances to Ai 10 ne
ton Of the question much contTOyertedWheher the pap
deposited and found anl'ns bis 'anaeIs aPsfs
themselves sufficient to WORK arevooAtlon Ihey m
tend illustrate the orisinal intsh bat moi snoS e
t purpose established BY the TACT Of legal and cont
uH b Of drather vs. cru,h they were proper beau
doubtful question here vas Ehsher The papers there ,a
intended to Dc iestamenAry, as ehsy w. w. - ~
unfinished and in the form Of esamen though written
When The Jury were told by his Honor this that
hsy were otherwise aisaed than fron the manner Of keeping
that it rspiaia:ed per. ala aos taSe - ~
is that il his will, what else could they nave nna
,tood but they liberty % rely on bis .
Iarations that be sufficient to defeat IT, tnoug
remained death, properly disposed and unFonehsd y
/ set Of hist g.. -.
recognize mere parol revocation BY smple change Of inb
hout any evBce that such his settled prrpo
The word rcpudlted, the connection in which u was US
- Dot verv appropriate the legal idea to the jury
was we'll calculated them wrong e0ncePon OF m
dutv upon the submitted 70 them wis Niieh shoun
the most Of mnns e eonneee WIN hl5 [oP
Up % moi "a he thus tightly regarded when made in conformity
the law. - .. - -.,,. ...,iu..
Ttmav he that this will in conflict with pubic seIae
n gnst our feas equity and justice among MS chilaf
o- mai was made Of feeling towards uu VI
Afterwards ehaugei but still the case must Be gCVern
General ru les iuvesti CATION, and is
The danger that wrong principle es aoshed 70
t seems 10 right defeat r1gat ana US
In many others All therefore, must be gOVefhed D'
same general rules and principles
ve sl by these considerations to again reverse
M Judgment in this case and graft second new trial
Test: n D. WKtcH, Clerk.
DISSOLUTION.
r-uF cornartnersip heretofore existing between the uT
sdaVd d.s5oly we'd hy