Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-02-02
MIR. WARWICK'S WILL
DECISION CfTHE SUPREME COURT IN
THIS INTERESTING CASE.
The Paper Produced Not Authenticated
Ascending 10 Law. and There
fore Null aud Void.

Thursday IN an opinion prepared and read
Nv Judge b. w. Lacy affirmed the judy
inent Of the lower court in the case of War
wick ~. Warwick.
1t was matter OF will, or an alleged
will. made by Abraham Warwick, Jr., dis
posing Of a fortune of $4,000, and had II
been held good. deccdents property
would have gone TO his widow during her
life. and at her death to his nearest of kin.
The question al issue was whether an Gu
dorscment which the testator made on an
envelope containing the paper could be
Construed rs q sufficient signature.
The teStator was about forty-hve years
old when he died. He resided in Henrico,
on the north side Of the Brook turnpike
and the Brook separated his farm from that
of Mr. John Stuart.
The Opinion.
Following is the opinion OF Judge Lacy:
This IS On appeal from decree Of the
Circuit Court Of lienricO county. rendered
on the 18th day OF November, 1889. The
cas- IS contest concerning the alleged
will Of Abraham Warwick, Jr,
The said Will was IN writing wrItten
wholly in the handwriting Of the said Abra-
ham Warwick. Jr., beginning with the
words. 81, Abraham Warwick, Jr., of the
county Of Henri co, declare this to DO my
last will and testament" &C., but did not
otherwise contain the signature or tho
name of the said Abraham Warwick, Jr.,
and was folded and enclosed in an envelope
found in the desk Of the said alleged tesla
Cor. which was sealed with mucilage. and
on the back OF the envelope was written
also in the handwriting of The said Warwick
the following: My wili-Abraham War
wick. Jr.'
II is admitted that the said Warwick was
man Of sound mind, and there is no dis
pute concerning the constructing OF the
sand tcstameDtary paper. ibe contest was
upon the question as to the due execution
Of tie said contested will.
N TIE LOWER COURT.
The appellees, two of the next of kin
pnd heirs at law and distributes of the
faid Abraham Warwick. Jr., deceased, filed
their hil IN the said Circuit Court of Hen
lco. claiming that the said Warwick died
interstate. and that the said testamentary
paper, which had been probated IN tho
f-l County Court was not the Will OF the
taid deceGent, the same not having been
Geued los the supposed testator, although
written wholly in his,handwriting, IN such
manner rs 20 make II manifest that the
name IS intended as signature. Inc case
vas tired in the said Circuit Court. and
Size said will pronounced invalid for the
yeasous that while wholly In the hand,
writing Of the docedent II was not signed
in such manner rs TO make 1t manifest
fhst the name was intended rs asignature.
llom this decree the appellant appealed.
WHAT THE LAW BEQuIIEs.
The sole question 10 be considered hereis
re 10 tie duo execution of the said VIII as
1rc-cribed by law. Section 25l4 OF the
lode Of Virginia provides as follows; NO
sill shall be valid unless il be in writing
md signed by the tcstator or 10y some other
uerson in his presence, and by his dlrec-
fiou IN such manner as TO make II manifest
that the name is intended as his signature;
and moreover. unless 1t be wholly written
i,y the testator. the signature shall be
made or tho Will acknowledged by MN IN
Tie presence Of at least two competent
witnesses present at the same time; ana
such witnesses shall subscribe the will III
the presence OF the testator, but no form
uf attestati0n shall be necessary The Will
b. this case was wholly written in the hand
writing OF the teStator. no witnesses were
therefore necessary. and none nave SUD
tcrbed the paper IN question, so that tne
capacity OF the testatOr being conceded the
only question Is as TO whether the Will Is
tigncd in the manner required by laws
THE SIGNATURE.
We have seen that there Is no signature
appended to the will, nor does the name OF
the testator appear to the will except at
the top. and in the manner stated, the viii
commencing: II, Abraham Warwick, DR.,
of the county Of Henrico, declare this TO
bo NV last will and testament" DC.
II Is insisted by the learned counsel for
the aupeilant that the name appearing
,11s At the tor of the will. and the will being
lI1,1 and enclosed in IN envelope. which
.,a. .ealed and endorsed, My will, A5ra-
ham Warwick. Jr.," that il is thus made
manifest that the signature was intended
So DE his signature, and they at the trial
moved the Court 20 instruct the jury that
I 4 H.. i'll ~ m
laper writing produced before them dated
January -. 1888, and ne endOrseneldon t'e en-
,.aoe. and the signature to said endorse
Yn.ut are wholly in the handwriting OF the
f,.tator, then they shall find that the said
paper writing and the endorsement on
ta.l envelope, and the signature TO sal9
endorsement constitute the last Will ana
testament of Abraham Warwick, Jr,, II
the Jury shall believe that the said Abra-
ham Warwick. IT.. was at the time OF exc
cutting the said writing Of sound mind ."
And insisted IN support of these instruc-
tions that the signature In the beginning
Of the said will was q sufficient signing,
fhe final intention Of the said tcstator that
this paper should operate as his last Will
tslnq prorcd by The fact tat a mas enclosed IN
q s,1lel enpeiope, and on De rdiifylng and con-
Jir7ndil,ry irorts. MY Will, Abraham War
tlck, Jr., " on the back Of said eyelope.
INSTRUCTIONS or THE COURT.
The Conrt refused the said instruction
aud cave the following: THE Court IN
structs the Jury that even If they believe
Srom the evidence that the paper writing
produced before them dated the 18th day
OF January, 1883, and the Endorsement IN
the words 'MY Will, Abraham WARWICK,
Jr.. upon the envelope, IN which the SAID
writing was enclosed, and wholly
IL the handwriting of the SAID
Arahraham Warwick. Jr., deceased,
they must. nevertheless, find that the sald
paper is not II itself. nor Is any part Thereon,
The true and valid last VIII and testament
uf said Abraham Warwick, Jr., because 1T
isau unusual mode of sic ling or authenti-
eating viii IS concluded act by en-
dof.inc the name OF person executing
and making IL on the envelope on which 1t
s. ENCLOSED. and said endorsement being at
most eauivocal. il does not appear that the
eaid Abraham Warwick JT., signed his
lame in the body of the paper writing
tf,resaid. or upon the envelope IN whlch
said writing was enclosed IN sum inuh ne,
n- TO make it manifest that IT was intended
fs a signature as required by the statue IN
turh case made aud provided" Under this
instruction of the Court the jury found
against the will, aud the motion OF the APP
pellapts 70 set aside the verdict was over
ruled by the Court.
ORIGIN or OUR STATUTE.
We have set forth above the statute OF
this state upon this subject. Our several
statutes upon this subject have been de de-
rived from the English statutes OF 2sth
Charles H., chapter 3, section ., William
~. Ist Victoria. chapter 70, and 18th and
10th Victoria chapter "a. The statutes OF
2Ah Charles H., chapter 8, section y did
not prescribe where the signature should
&c placed and soon after the enact
ment of the statute II was determined III
the case of Lemayne rs. Stanley. decided
in the Court Of Common Pleas at Easter
term. In the thirty-third year OF Charles
H., lGs2, that "a will written wholly, by
tho testator himself but not signed by HIM
was good" For being written by HIM.
sir and his aaroe IN he lriQ, It'll q sufficient
s.enine within the statute. which does not
appoint where tho viii shall DO signed
on the top, bottom. or margin, ana
therefore signing in any part IS
sufficient @ DEGREES ~. ms decl-
often re-