Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-02-02

that It shall be signed in such manner az 10
make II manifest that the name IL intended
as signature" This expression was
probably inserted In appreciation Of
tho principle that was decided. but
In which decision it may seem
there was not unanimity of tho
judges in the case Of Waller "a. Wal
Ter, and to settle as far az general cxnres-
sion in a statute can settle the law of par
ticular cases. the doubts and difficulties
which are presented in Selden ~. Coaiter,
and which may often occur in cases OF
olograph wills. The design is probably
the Same in effect as that which the Eng
lish statute First Wet. chapter %. sec
ton .. } requires, when ii says that IL
" shall be signed at the foot or end thereof
by the testat IT." The manifest intention
Of the signature wherever placed being
the rule Of Virginia statute. the signing
at the foot or end being alone the index
OF tho intention "a the rule OF the English
statute. Qom. Dig. 3, 70.)
THE PROPER MODE OF AUTHENTTcATIoY.
In the case OF Ramsay cs. Ramsay C13
Graft. 66f) this statute Of July 1. 1850,
came under review in this court. In the case
ola viii like this. lacking however. the en-
dorsement on the envelope, and Judge
Daniel delivering the opinion OF this court,
said: Whether III the effort to construe
the words in question we look alone to
their ordinary import and the context or
seek their Interpretation in the state of the
law existing at the time when the act was
passed. and shown TO have been brought
70 the notice OF the Legislature and in the
design which we thence deduce 10 have
been contemplated by them. ! think there
is no serious difficulty in coming to the
conclusion that the act recognizes no will as
sufficiently signed unless it affirmatively
appear from the position OF the signature
as at tho foot or end, or from other Internal
ecdence equally convincing. that the tesla
tor designed by pe use Of The Signature to all-
thenticate the instrument. And as in the
case under consideration the signing at the
top alone, which, from its nature, is an
equivocal act, IL aided by no other evil
dence or explanation on ne face Of he paper
showing that such signing was used for the
purpose of ratifying and authenticating
the contents Of the instrument, L am OF
the opinion that the requirement Of the
act has not been complied with" In the
case Of Roy Us. Roy (l6 Graft. page 418)
the Will in question was like this, except
that the paper upon which the will was
written was folded up and on the back
after IL was folded the paper was endorsed
David M. Roy's Will" so that when I'M
folded the said endorsement appeared TO
be about the middle of the third page, the
will having ended on the second page,
Judge Allen said in that case, after citing
Ramsey vs. Ramsey: 1t is an unusual
mode of signing or authenticating paper
as q concluded act by endorsing the name
of the person executing IL on the back.
Such endorsement is usually made as a
label or mark TO distinguish 1t from other
papers, and probably it never occurred to
the deceased that ii was 10 have any other
function in this case" 1t is at most equivo-
cal, and being so il is ruled by the case of
Ramsey Is. Ramsey"
in England the signing at the foot or end
is alone the index of intention by the
statute of Wet. and the manifest intention
of the signature wherever placed is the
rule in Virginia. The insertion of
the name Of Abraham Warwick, Jr..
at the beginning is an equlvocal
act, and being so il cannot be held to
be such q signing of the paper as to make
it manifest that it was intended as sigma
ture. The endorsement on the envelope is
not a signing of the Will and was doubtless
not so intended by the deceased.
THE COURTS JUDGMENT.
The apparent object of endorsing an en-
velope or wrapper is for n label to mark or
designate the contents, but does not afford
internal evidence that the signature on the
back of the envelope was intended rs o
signature to the will. II was obviously not
q signature 10 the will at all, end the result
of all the authorities Is that the fnality of
intention evinced by The signing must APP
pear from the will itself. The statute says
"Siqnei in such manner as to make IT mani
fest that the name is intended as a
signature" And this Court said IN
tho case Of Ramsey u.s. Ramsey that unless
the name of the testator appear az
frmatively from something on The
No m h0V8 been
intended as signature, it is not sutii-
cient signing under the statute. The sign
ing required by the statute must manifest
ly appear to be intended as signature
from the face of the instrument which
must appear by internal evidence equally
convincing as the signing at tho loot OF
end that it must be manifest.
The finality of the testamentary intent
must be ascertained from the face OF the
naDer. and extrinsic evidence is not ad-
inlssible either to prove or disprove II.
The signing of will to be a sufficient
SIGNING under the statute must be such
as upon the face of the instrument appears
To have been intended to give 1t anthem
ticity. IL must appear that the name was
regarded as q signature that the instru-
ment was completed without turther sig-
nature and the paper itself must snow
this, for the statute requires that
tho will shall be so signed-that
IS so stoned in manner to make
il manifest that the name was IN;
tended as signature. 1t is an equivocal
ret, as is well settled, to insert the name al
the top or beginning, and e1trinsic evi.
dence is not employed 70 effect. either
nyo or con- the question of finality of inten-
zion when this internal evidence to be
Afforded by the face OF the paper is want,
inc. We think the decree OF the Circuit
Court of Henrice rejecting the will with
ont error and the same will be affirmed.
Mr.. Warwicks hoirs-at-law are several
L oul oicfara