The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1902-02-25
Supreme Court Decisions

~NPoported by Joseph l.. Seawell}.
Methodist Protestant Church Of Hender-
son VS.. ]. r. Young, ct al, appellants.
HHtom vance,. Affirmed.
In 1880 w. "A. H. conveyed land to
church trustees and their successors,
upon which to erect a church. the deed
providing that if said trustees discon-
tinued the occupancy Of said land the
deed 10 be void and the land TO revert To
me heirs and assigns of the grantor. The
church was erected and the land used
for the intended purpose until 1900 when
1t vas abandoned and erantor having
DIED testate in 1882, devising his property
TO his two children. w. c. II. and y. z.
aevising and beQuething to p. y. all his
real ana personal estate of every kind
not h~ereinbefore disposed Of" z. Y. died
testate in 1892 without issue. her will
providing that all the read, personal and
mixed property of which she died SELF
Cd and possessed and not heretofore dis
posed Of should be collected and sold by
her executor Ghe d%efendant). The grant
o:'S son and Gevisee. w. Q. II. is still
living and since the breach of condition
by the plaintiff trustees has executed TO
them a quit claim deed for the land sold
- SA' u O5t'Co ~
That the breech Of condition in the deed
OF ". A. II. having been committed after
his death. no estate therein passed by his
Will to his devisee p. Y. ca. That upon
the breach Of condition IN 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
rI1 INF ffT 3p1tlfraa a foe cirnnl. eGtSta
S. A. Cutler. appellant VS.. c. c. Cutler
ct al. tErom Beaufort). New trial.
! Revocation of a will consists of %.
the intention Of the testator To revoke
and (2). some outward act or symbo, CT
destruction. a DETACHMENT, obliteration
or destruction without the intent 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-
Quent circumstances.
Where an instrument executed as a
Will ten years before the death cf the
which he had left and rented out and
'N' CeAAi NHS4A Lax SNSN"NOh > hAhAN AoHA
therefrom and in a mutilated condition
by the testator's tenant, but the t~estator
vas not Informed thereof, but it appear
ed that he knew Of the obiiteration of the
instrument, it was Held, that if it ap-
peared that the obliteration was done 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 he jnrv ana + was error IN the
! jury and to instruct them that if it
did appear, that the obliteration OF the
will was lone by vermin it did not
amount TO a revocation.
It is sufficient where the witnesses
sign the Will before the t~estator sign,
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 a part of their EVIL
dence an admission of the caveatOr that
j. B. Respass, in the presence Of alleged
testator, signed as q subscribing witness,
the script p~ropounded as his will and that
the alleged t~estator also signed in the
presence Of said witness aud declared
it to be his last Will. The caveatOr OBJ
jected to this evidence and his attorney
made effidavit that when the ease was
called the caveator announced his read
mess for trial ana tie p~ropounGers stated
that they were not really By reason CT
the absence of the witness Rrspass AMI
that caveator made said admission for
the purpose of getting 2 trial at that
term. and because the Witness Res1,ass
was absent. The court al!Owtd the ad-
mission in evidence; Held error.