The New York herald., 1867-03-29
tn G Q u r T S.
COURT Of APPEALS.
Important Question as 10 fbe Mode Of ENe-
cutting Wills.

Important Question as 10 the Mode Of ENe-
cutting Wills.
Before Chief Judge Daries and a fun bench.
Efinetus 4 wilis, Appstlant S'ia' NOT, k1eess'r
G Last wa and Tsstamen of Samaei MOT DereaSsd ne
,rcrlsnt - This was an appeal from decision of The
Supreme Court Affirming that OF the Surrogate u
Queens county admitting probate an instrument Pre-
pounded as the vii Or samuel NotI who died NAY is
IscA
AT the foot Of The viii attes,aion clacse ssnea
by Andrew }. Hegeman, Adam Ao,s and Joseph O.
Hegeman Andrew ). Hegeman dedpAnGArs ; l>sS,
and The two witnesses who produced and examined
10 prove The will Adam Moti and Joseph Hese-
man. Aeam Mott stated that he signed witness
'aooni the time the will bears date and The other
sgned IN October 1852 nearls Two asler the
date Of The will The case presents the question
whether on probate OF wall u IS competsn; TO prove,
by two Witnesses the TACT thai waea the VIII was
executed y had been actually subscribed By The iestaor
AZ the end thereof
b D. >iiiman counsel for the appellant. contended
thai the will not uted aud published in accord.
Ince with the statute there being no valid proof
pance with The very first requirement OF the statute
the iact OF actual subscription Even II the sig
nature had been seen by either one OF the witnesses
aboye named IA. Mott and j. O. Hegemaul the proof
would have been deficient for lack of another witness 10
ihe same poin1 II further argued thai no TWO OF
the witnesses became such the same day, and that
the ~ was executed, II al all when Is was signed BY
the nrst witness
An;hon, among other points that the law is settled that
The witnesses TO Will need not attest in presence OF
there than witnesses 10 will II is enough
"a show compliance with the statutory requirement as
ans them that the acknowledgement and dec,a
ration need not be in any particular form OF words aud
that knowed Incnt OF the signature and execution is
equivalent the actual seeing by the witness OF the
hysical act oi subscription.
Case submitted.
Important Question In Relation 10 Claims
against Ins0lvent Insurance C0mpani
Geocse Os9oDddn Another Rseeius,s of Columbian
JH'srdnoc Company appellants, Wn De Groot ct al
Respondents. On the Sd OF March, 1865, the Columbian
Insurance Company insured the defendants the bark
Heress giving premium note for So 0l0 at one
year The note thus became due in March, 1866 In
November, 1866, the defendants suffered loss OF
$2,s25, and on the goth OF March, 1866, gave the
ee;vers notice Of proof Of claim. BY the policy losses
not payable until sixty days after proof Of claim
consequently in this until the goth of May.
time, receivers appointed IN place OF whom the
plaintiff subsequently substituted before the note
became due and before proof Of loss On the be-
coming due the receivers sued the defendants claim,
Ln set OF the whole OF their loss against the note
The receivers contend that the painns claim dd not
until after the insolvency Of the company, and
after the note became due and that cannot be set off,
bu must go with other creditors and share pro
The defendants hold that their claim existent and
perfected at the instant OF the loss and then became
on, and bv the terms OF the policy interest
allowed and with loss from that day by way Of set off
and that therefore, the claim and note having
together INTO the hands OF the company off
one against the other Case still D. d. 4 %. Field
foI appellants, Mr. Choafe for respondents.