The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-02-22
Supreme Court Decisions.

(Roported by Joseph l.. SeawelD
Methodist Protestant Church of Hender-
son VS.. j. r. Young, ct AL appellants.
(From vance,. Affirmed.
In 1880 w. A. H. conveyed land to
church trustees and their successors,
upon which to erect q church, the deed
providing that if said trustees discon-
tinued the occupancy of said land the
dc cd to be void and the land to revert 10
the heirs and assigns of the grantor The
church was erected and the land used
for the intended purpose until 1900 when
IL was abandoned and grantor having
died testate in 1882, devising his property
to his two children, W. G. II. and p. Y.
t7evising and bequething to p. Y. all his
''real an6 personal estate of every kind
not hereinhefore disposed of" =. Y. died
testate in 1892 without issue, her will
providing that all the read. personal and
mixed property Of which she died seiz-
cd and possessed and not Heretofore dis
posed of should be collected and sold by
her executor (the defendant). The grant
or's son and devisee. w. 9. H. is stu
living and since the breach of condition
by the plaintiff trustees has executed 10
them a quit claim deed for the land sold
to the trustees by W. A FL. Held.-tD.
That the breech OF condition in the deed
of w, A. H. having been committed after
his death. no estate therein passed by his
will to his devisee p, Y. CO.. That upon
the breach of condition m 1900 the right
of entry and estate in said land reverted
to w. c. H., the only heir at law OF the
grantee w. A. II. at the time of the
breach and by the deed of w. G. II. the
plaintiff acquired fee simple estate.
s. A. Cutler, appellant VS.. c. G. Cutler
ct al. (From BeauforD. New trial
Revocation of a will consists of ~,
the intention of the testator to revoke
and (2), some outward act or symbol CT
destruction. a DETACHMENT, oblitcration
or destruction without the iutent Of the
testator to revoke, is not sufficient, nor
is the intent to revoke sufficient without
some act of obliteration or destruction.
While every act of cancelling imports
that it was done with intent to revoke,
yet it is but a presumption which may
be rebutted by accompanying or subse-
ouent circumstances.
Where an instrument executed as a
will ten years before the death CT the
testator was left by him in his old home
which he had left and rented out and
was found with the testator's name torn
therefrorn and in q mutilated condition
by the testator's tenant, but the testator
was not informed thereof, but it appear
ed that he knew of the obliteration of the
instrument, it was Held, that If il APP
peared that the obliteration was dono en-
tirely by vermin. the question of the tes-
tator's intent to revoke should have been
trial judge to take this uestion from the
left to the jury, and it was error in the
jury and to instruct them that IL it
did appear, that the obliteration of the
will was done by vermin 1t did not
amount to a revocation.
1t is sufficient where the witnesses
sign the will before the testator signs.
if they sign in his presence and the tes-
tator signs Immediately thereafter and
in the presence of the witnesses.
Upon the trial at July term, 1901, pro-
Founders offered as part of their evil
dence an admission of the cayeator that
J. b. Respass, in the presence of alleged
tcstator, signed as a subscribing witness,
the script propounded as his will and that
the alleged testator also signed in the
presence of said witness and declared
it to be his last will. The caveator OBJ
jected to this evidence and his attorney
made affidavit that when the case was
called the caveator announced his read
mess for trial and the propounders stated
that they were not ready by reason Of
the absence of the witness Respass and
that caNeator made said admission for
the purpose of getting a trial at that
term, and because the witness Respass
was absent. The court allowed the ad-
mission in evidence; Held error.