Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-05-17
DECISIONS OF THE sUpnEmE ooURr
OFFICIAL.


Decisions of tho Supreme Court OF rhe
state of Tennessee AT Nashv,lfe Ne.
| ceTn Der Term, 1850.
| II. Slower and Others 8. John Kendall ana ia.
i Lewis Slower made his viii in 1852, which vaa
attessed 6y but one Uiness He devised most of his
land to his wife for life, and remainder to his ar
/ soma including John StopeT. AT some time affair
wards the word obiterated and Jfre Inserted
/ and "John Slower was expunged, without the sub
| stitntion Of any other name. When this Was done
| or by whom, does not appear. But the win re-
NAMED in his possession, and codicils were added
which make il clear that il was done by him, and
| the object Of it made manifest.
On the 18th March, 1857, he made q codicil, in
which several provisions contained, and among
others that the part Of the land to which his son
John was entitled in remainder should include his
spring, SC. AL this is erased, and word six also
altered to five, as in the original will This codieil
| is atiested by two witnesses.
Afterwards, on the 9th Of April 1857, he adds
these words, the same sheet Of paper below the
first codicil .In addition TO what have written
declare my will and desire, that my John Slower
be made void and has no share in my land; and my
reason fos so ding is, do not believe it safe in his
hands, for at times it seems that he is not sane.
will that his Nicholas L. Slower have an equeal
share Of my land with my Eve sons, when he is 2l
| years of age" g 81 cor.
This is signed, under SEAL BY the testatOr, and
| attested by only one witness.
IulS buONS- Clearly HOT only the Time and by
whom made, but the object Of the erasures an ohlt
erations in the original will, and the first codie
The original will and the first codcil; but not the
second, were propounded for probate and the
same were contested by Kendall and wife Various
questions arose on the trial. The jury found in
favor Of the will and codici and that the erasures
Of the words "sx' and "John Slower" were not
intended as revocation Of that part of the will,
but that the CELEBRATION of the clause in the codicl
by which the part Of John in the land Was dssie-
mated, was intended as revocation Of that part Of
the same. -.-
l. The original will was not good as to the land
for want Of tvo Subscribing witnesses. But the
codicil Of March, 1857, properly sttested, and
that operated as republication Of the original will
with the proper attestation. Every eodiel is IN con-
struetion Of law q part Of a mans will. Williams
Ex. 175 and note y, in which the authorities al
cited: also Hump 286. So, although the will Of
1852 was not so attested 70 be good devise Of
real eststs, yet the codcil Of Mareh, 1857, being
properly sttested, cured the defect and made ths
original will operative if il had been attested
by two witnesses in conformity to the set Of 1874.
.. Was the finding Of the jury, under the instruc-
tious Of the Court, in relation to the obiterations
and erasures, correct? We think it clear that the
change of his intention TO his John, evinc-
ed by the Intellectual attempt to give The one sixth
of the land to his grandson, Nicholas, in April,
1857 the cause Of the cancellations in question.
That was doubtless the time the erssures were made
anu the OpltCS WAS 70 LuHL puI POsc- Dub
this failing for want Of the proper stteststion Of
the eodicil then made, the revocation cannot
take effect, but the will must remain as il was be-
fore the cancellation.
Deliberations and interlinestions are imperative
to change q will, il made with view Of making
different disposition which 10 not eectually carried
out So if such change OF purpose is mos carried
out because Of sudden death any other cause, or
the attempted disposition invalid ths esncellng
of the first being dependent thereon, is null and
does not effect the revocation Of the original, but
il will stand as it was before the cancellation In
Hsss. 49, Sir John Nuhall says, ''thst such can
ceiling being preparatory to the deceased making
new. will and conditional only, was not revoca-
tions' 10 Williams Ex. and notes, this doc
trine is fully sustained. II the new disposition
fails for the want of proper attentionthe effect is
the same sccordisg TO these authorities. The jury
was therefore correctly instructed on this point.
The codicil Of April 1857, failsifor want Of the
sttestslion of flp0 witnesses. Consequently the
former disposition without regard to the oblitera
tions must take effect the only object for which
they were made was to make new and different
disposition, and that, though attempted, has proved
inetftctuL
There was than no error in the charge Of the
Court and the finding of the pay, AID Judgment
will be affirmed. CARUTaRRs.
Correct copy, j. P. CLARK clerk.