The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-11-27
THE STATUTE or WILLS.
Change IN New Ysrk Law Grged Because
OF Its Ansmalous Coalition.

| - fFCtut urcfnADn ny tHN SupHVhfV NDui&
OF Pennsy " ania that the end" of a will Is
the logical End OF the tertator's disposition
Of his property and not the point spatially
furfhest removed from the beginning has
| led to renewed suggestions by lawyers and
legal journals that the New York statute
Of wills. which has been construed to mean
the latter. should be changed by legisla-
i've enactment because the Law in this State
is at present In an eccentric condition.
Tho Law In New York was laid down most
dsnniiely in the Matter of Andrews ti6a y.
Y. -. decided by the Court OF Appeals IN
| 1890. after the Appellate Division OF the
Second Department had protested en-
phaticaily and unanimously against the
provisions OF the statute Of wills which
compelled them TO hold that tho will IN
question was void. The Court OF Appeals
held that the intention OF the Legislature
and not that of the testator must govern the
construction OF tho statute. and IL the tes-
| tator fails to execute a will in conformance
with the statute the court must condemn
the instrument and can give no force to the
fact that he honestly intended thereby TO
make will
The Court Of Appeals decided In the
Andrews case that a will drawn upon q
printed blank. folded at the middle 50 rs 10
make four consecutive pages. with the
| attestatiou clause At the top OF the second
! page and executed at that point by the
! tsstator aud tho attesting witnesses. 80
that tine hrst Two PAGES toSether make q
compiete VIII, n not suoscrioed ny tine
! testator at the end OF the will as required
by the statute. where the third page con-
tans further material and complete DISPOSE
lions OF property In no manner connected
with the first and second pages. except
that the third page II numbered "a ana
the second page I'd. the draushtsmsn haH-
ing passed 10 the thirn page aiter ne mao
niied tho nrst
Tho case went np on appeal from the
Snrro&ase OF Kings county VINO had re-
FUSED probate TO the wtll on me ground
thaf u was not subscribed NJ the end The
Appellate Division OF the Second depart
nent amrmed the will by divided bench.
bnt Justice Cullen. Who was then member
OF the court. expressed strong disapprovai
Of the law which required them to af'irm
inc sorrosster decision me court aaid
It's ruling Was reached because OF stress NJ
authority. and that uDsided ny the light OF
recent decisions it's conclusions " ould have
been different. Ons Of the dissenting
members OF the court said that cases some
sirnps arose when n Judge was sustained
in r~fu.inv a, foliox III. con,t or la, ,.-or,
FOR ,h,. ys..on m. C,nr, n, An,.nIs nsl,
.co,.,r,,,.d 20 ,eexam,n. ,n. ,syai s,,,,a-
y -. - -. -.
"on pn .asu '" our atenon,
VI Npp san Vi"
u"""'r"'S true th"t 'f"'i' Hhe !" 'ih'@ an
h"heS' aurmpt y" execute isS' VIII ana
testament IL defeated Tor failure 20 observe
one or more statutory provisions. but added
1t 10 better this should happen under a
proper construction Of the statute than that
the Individual case should weaken those
provisions calculated TO protect testntors
from the fraudulent alteration Of their
wills.
The court said that u was suggested on
the argument Of tho case that the effect Of
the statute Of Wills a. strictly construed by
the court Is 20 defeat tn" intent Of many
tessator~. while fraudulent addition to Wills
~ crime OF rare occurrence The faiiacy
OF this argument consists in overlooking
the fact that the number Of frauds pre-
vented by our wise and simple statute can
never be known. said the court. We
might Ne well ask how many commercial
cr'mes nave oeeh prevented DS our statute
OF frauds
Tho court declared that the case &C bar
was one OF the ssrop xess ilIu Al m tons of the