Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-475-The-revocation-of-a-will.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 08:19:26+00:00

Document:
610, note; Lingan v. Carroll, 3 Har. & Mch. (Md.) 333, 338; Deford v. Deford, 36 Md. 168, 179.
47. 7 Wm. IV. and 1 Vict. c. 26, Sec. 25; 2 Woerner, Administration, Sec. 438.
48. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 2822.
49. In re Upham's Estate, 127 Cal. 90, 59 Pac. 315; Drew v. Wakefield, 54 Me. 291; Thayer v.
Wellington, 9 Allen (Mass.) 283, 296; Molineaux v. Raynolds, 55 X. J. Eq. 187, 36 Atl. 276; Cruik-shank v. Home for Friendless, 113 N. Y. 337, 4 L. R. A. 140, 21 N. E. 64; Albany Hospital v. Hanson. 214 N. Y. 135, 108 N. E. 812.
50. Massey's Appeal, 88 Pa. St. 470; Rizer v. Perry, 58 Md. 112. See 2 Woerner, Administration, Sec. 438.
51. 29 Car. II, c. 3, Sec. 6. See Swinton v. Bailey, 4 App. Cas. 70.
52. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec.Sec. 2672, 2673.
53. 1 Jarman, Wills, 118; 1 Woerner, Administration, Sec. 48. The statute frequently contains a provision to this effect. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 2672(C).
54. Burtenshaw v. Gilbert, Cowp. 52; Burns v. Burns, 4 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 295. See Lord's Estate, 106 Me. 51, 75 Atl. 286.
55. Strong's Appeal, 79 Conn. 123, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1107; Semmes v. Semmes, 7 H. & J. (Md.) 388. See, as to dependent relative revocation, post, this section, notes 70-73.
56. Giles v. Warren, L. R. 2 Prob. & Div. 401.
57. Rich v. Gilkey, 73 Me. 595; Brunt v. Brunt, L. R. 3 Prob. & Div. 37; Lang's Estate, 65 Cal. 19; Sprigge v. Sprigge, L. R. 1 Prob. & Div. 608; Forbing v. Weber, 99 Ind. 588; Delafield v. Parish, 25 N. Y. 9. In Billington v. Jones, 108 Tenn. 234, 91 Am. St. Rep. 751, 56 L. R. A. 654, it was held that, in the absence of a statute fixing the mode of revocation, the writing in pencil, below the signature, of a statement that the will was null and void, was sufficient.
In a considerable number of states it is provided that the cancellation or destruction of the will which effects its revocation may be the act of a third person as well as of the testator himself, provided, ordinarily, this is by the testator's direction and in his presence, and in some states the fact of destruction with the testator's consent must be proven by at least two witnesses.
58. Mundy v. Mundy, 15 N. J. Eq. 290; Hoitt v. Hoitt, 63 N. H. 475; Kent v. Mahaffey, 10 Ohic St. 204; Dclifieid v. Parish, 25 N. Y. 9. So in Doe d. Reed v. Harris, 6 Adol. & E. 209, it was decided that throwing the will on the fire, if it was snatched off by another person before more than the envelope was singed, did not constitute a revocation.
59. Trice v. Shipton, 113 Ky. 102, 101 Am. St. Rep. 351, 67 S. W. 377; Rise v. Fincher, 32 N.
C. 139, 51 Am. Dec. 204; Clingan v. Micheltree, 31 Pa. St. 25.
60. Doe d. Perkes v. Perkes, 3 Barn. & Aid. 489; Elms v. Kims. 1 Swab. & Tr. 155.
61. Bibb v. Thomas, 2 W. Bl. 1043; Sweet v. Sweet, 1 ftedf. Surr. (N. Y.) 451; White v. Casten, 46 N. C. 197, 59 Am Dec. 585; Lawyer v. Smith, 8 Mich. 411.
62. Gay v. Cay, 60 Iowa, 415, 46 Am. Rep. 78.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.