Case Name: Matter of Proving the Last Will and Testament of Catharine Johnson, Deceased
Court: New York Surrogate's Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1902-02
Citations: 37 Misc. 334
Docket Number: 
Parties: Matter of Proving the Last Will and Testament of Catharine Johnson, Deceased.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 334–336

Head Matter:
Matter of Proving the Last Will and Testament of Catharine Johnson, Deceased.
(Surrogate’s Court, Herkimer County,
February, 1902.)
Will — Legatees when, not cut off by being subscribing witnesses to a codicil.
The fact that legatees under a will are subscribing witnesses to a codicil endorsed upon it does not preclude them from taking under the will where it alone, is proved and the codicil does not benefit them and is not necessary to the proof of the will.
Proceeding to prove a will.
James Conkling, for petitioners.
J. B. & J. E. Rafter, for contestant.

Opinion:
Devendore, S.
The petition, as presented and filed herein, alleges that the deceased made and executed a certain instrument in writing, bearing date June 22, 1897, as, and for her last will and testament, and that the same by its terms relates to both real and personal property. Probate of such instrument is asked by the petitioners who are two of the executors named.
No mention is made of the codicil. Hpon the return of the citation, issued herein, the contestant, one of the next of kin, filed objections to probate, claiming that there was a codicil to said will, and that proof and probate of such will is improper unless proof is also given of the codicil. The subscribing witnesses to the will gave evidence sufficient to entitle it to probate, unless the position of the contestant is well taken. The codicil is indorsed upon the will, and the subscribing witnesses to it are the principal beneficiaries under the will. Hence it is claimed that the legacy to the witnesses who subscribed the codicil is void.
The statute provides., that " If any person shall be a subscribing witness to the execution of any will, wherein any beneficial devise, legacy shall be made to such witness, and such will cannot be proved without the testimony of such wit •ness, the said devise or legacy shall he void, so far only as concerns such witness, or any claiming under him " (2 R. S. m. p. 65, § 50).
The petition filed makes no mention of the codicil, and the proponents offered simply the evidence of the subscribing witnesses to the will, and then asks its admission to probate.
I think the will is entitled to probate without the codicil being proven, or established; it is not necessarily a part of the proponents' case; it was not necessary for the proponents in order to prove the will, or ask for its probate to introduce proof as to the codicil.
I am df the opinion, however, that a beneficiary does not lose his rights under a "will, in consequence of his being an attesting witness to a codicil, ratifying and confirming the will, or by reason of his giving evidence as such. I have not been able to find any decision in point in this State; yet there is English authority on the subject which sustains my view. Denne v. Wood, 4 L. J. Ch. 57; Tempest v. Tempest, 2 Kay & J. 635.
It has been said that the bequest of a legacy is not void because the legatee attests a codicil which gives him nothing; neither does a residuary legatee of a share of the residue lose his title by attesting a codicil. Gurney v. Gurney, 3 Drewry, 208; Marcus v. Marcus, 57 Law Times, 399.
In the case at bar no provision is made for the subscribing witnesses in the codicil; if the said witnesses had attested the will, and were necessarily sworn upon a hearing for its probate, undoubtedly the bequest or devise to them would be void; but this will could be and was proved without the evidence of either of said beneficiaries, and the legacy to them is valid, and the will entitled to probate.
They were not witnesses to the execution of the will within the scope and meaning of the statute above referred to; neither was their evidence necessary to establish the will. Had they been sworn they would have testified to the signing and attesting of the codicil, not to' the execution of the will. They attested only the instrument to which they put their names.
The legacy to a subscribing witness to a will is not void where the will can be proven without the testimony of the witness, as where such witness is a nonresident of the State, and the testimony of the other subscribing witness can be obtained. Corn well v. Wooley, 4 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 40; Caw v. Robertson, 5 N. Y. 125.
This will has been proven by the unchallenged evidence of the two subscribing witnesses. The codicil, indorsed thereon, subscribed by the two principal beneficiaries named in the will, has not been offered for probate, excepting as urged by the objections.
I have come to the conclusion herein that in order to obtain probate of this will it is not necessary for the proponents to offer and establish the codicil; and, again, if it were necessary, and had the subscribing witnesses to the codicil been sworn as such, it would not have rendered the provision for their benefit in the will void.
The will may be admitted to probate, and a decree is allowed accordingly.
Probate decreed.