Case Name: Ruby M. Young, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louis Young et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1974-06-18
Citations: 20 Ill. App. 3d 242
Docket Number: No. 73-316
Parties: Ruby M. Young, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louis Young et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports, Third Series
Volume: 20
Pages: 242–252

Head Matter:
Ruby M. Young, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louis Young et al., Defendants-Appellees.
(No. 73-316;
Fifth District
June 18, 1974.
G. MORAN, P. J., dissenting.
Miller & Pfaff, of Salem, for appellant.
Lackey & Lackey, of Centralia, for appellees.

Opinion:
Mr. JUSTICE EBERSPACHER
delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court of Marion County denying appellant's, Ruby M. Young's, petition to probate a document purported to be the will of the deceased, Roger C. Young.
The issue before this court is whether or not a document, which does not include an attestation clause, can be admitted to probate when none of the subscribing witnesses are able to testify either that it was signed by the decedent in their presence or that the signature of the decedent was acknowledged at the time they, the witnesses, affixed their signatures to it.
Section 43 of the Probate Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 3, par. 43), provides that:
"Every will by which any real or personal estate is devised or bequeathed shall be reduced to writing, shall be signed by the testator or by some person in his presence and by his direction, and shall be attested in the presence of the testator by two or more credible witness."
The requirements of the foregoing provisions are circumscribed by section 69 of the Probate Act (Ill. Rev. Stat, ch. 3, par. 69), which provides in part that:
"When each of 2 attesting witnesses to a will testifies before the court (a) that he was present and saw the testator or some person in his presence and by his direction sign the will in the presence of the witness or that the testator acknowledged it to the witness as his act,
This court is asked to determine whether or not.the requirements contained in the aforementioned provisions of the Probate Act are mandatory. This issue was resolved in the case of In re Will of Lagow, 391 Ill. 72, 62 N.E.2d 469, wherein the supreme court stated that the law then in effect (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1943, ch. 3, par. 194), which is the present section 43 of the Probate Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 3, par. 43):
"* requires as essential to the execution of a valid will that the testator sign the will in the presence of the attesting witnesses or that he acknowledge it before them as his act and deed. This provision of the statute is mandatory, and while it is not necessary that a testator both sign and acknowledge in the presence of the attesting witnesses, it is indispensible to the will's validity that he execute the same in the witnesses' presence by one or the other of such methods." (391 Ill. at 78.)
The court further stated:
"Courts are not authorized to dispense with any of the formalities which the legislature has prescribed for the execution of a valid will. No method of executing a will, other than that provided by statute, can be adopted, although in the opinion of the court it would be just as effective as that provided by the statute." (391 Ill. at 79.)
In view of the foregoing this court concludes that the requirements embraced in section 43 and section 69 of the Probate Act are mandatory.
The instrument presented for probate was typed on the letterhead of "Roger C. Young, Real Estate Broker, 222 North Broadway, Salem, Illinois." After its final provision was typed the word "Signed" followed by the handwritten signature and words "Roger C. Young, Salem, Illinois." This was followed by the typed words "this 16th day of March 1946." To the lower left was the typed word "Witnesses" under which appeared the signatures of Mrs. Walter Atkins, Mr. Howard Hunter and Edgar B. Kagy, in that order. On the petition of the widow Ruby M. Young, who was by the instrument appointed "Administrator without bond," to admit the instrument to probate, those three persons were called to testify.
The first witness, Mrs. Walter Atkins, on direct examination testified that she had seen the document before; that her name was attached thereto and that she signed "as a witness." She further testified in response to the inquiry, 'Til ask you if you remember whether or not Mr. Roger C. Young signed that document?" that "I didn't see him." She further testified that she did not know Mr. Young's signature and answered "Yes" to the inquiry, "The only thing you recall is you have seen that document and that's your signature?" She was never asked whether the instrument bore Mr. Young's signature at the time she signed it, nor was she asked if Mr. Young acknowledged a signature on the instrument to be his. She was not cross-examined.
The second witness, Mr. Howard Hunter, on direct examination testified that he was acquainted with Mr. Young during his lifetime. His direct examination follows:
"Q. I will hand you a document and ask you to examine it.
A. That's my signature.
Q. Have you ever seen that document before?
A. I signed it over at the funeral home.
Q. I'll ask you who else signed it while you were there?
A. Nobody while I was there. He just brought it in and asked me to sign it. He lived on North Broadway and I was working there at McMackin's Funeral Home and he brought it in and wanted to know if I'd sign it and I said, yes. I signed it and he left and as far as I know he went home.
Q. Did he say that he had signed it?
A. To the best of my knowledge it was signed.
Q. What other names were on there?
A. I don't remember any other names.
Q. Do you know whether or not you were the first to sign as a witness?
A. I can't say whether I was or not but it seems like, to the best of my knowledge, I was."
His cross-examination follows:
"Q. Did Mr. Young ever tell you that was his signature?
A. No. I took it for granted if his signature was on it at the time that it was his because he brought it in for me to sign. I think he said he was leaving on a two weeks trip.
Q. The signature was there when you first saw it.
A. To the best of my knowledge it was. I'm not saying it was or wasn't. I don't really know."
From the fact that his signature did not appear as the first, although he thought he was the first to sign and the fact that he was not positive that Mr. Young had signed the instrument before it was brought to him, we can understand how the trial court who heard and saw the witness would conclude, as did the witness himself, that he didn't "really know" whether Mr. Young's signature appeared on the instrument at the time the witness first saw it, and that the witness's actual knowledge of the events and circumstances surrounding the affixation of his own signature was very limited on the essential points.
The third witness, Edgar Kagy, after identifying himself by name was asked and answered on direct examination as follows:
"Q. I'll hand you this document and ask you who did you see sign that document?
A. I didn't see anybody only Roger Young.
Q. Did you see Roger Young sign the document?
A. Yeah, he signed it.
Q. In your presence?
A. Well, I forgot all about it.
Q. But you did see Mr. Roger Young sign it?
A. That's right and that's my initial.
Q. I'll ask you whether or not you saw Mrs. Atkins sign this as a witness?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Or anyone else?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Who was present when you signed for Mr. Young.
A. I can't honestly answer that.
Q. Where was that, at the funeral home?
A. No.
Q. But you were present when Mr. Roger Young signed it?
A. Yes sir."
On cross-examination, after testifying that he did not remember where he was at the time of signing his name on the instrument, he was asked, and answered:
"Q. Now then, do you remember whether or not Roger Young had already signed this when you signed it or whether you signed it first?
A. No sir, I can't answer that.
Q. Your name appears to be on the bottom of three lines.here. A. Right.
Q. Do you know whether or not the other two people had signed that before you did?
A. All I know, that's my signature.
Q. Did you see Roger Young sign this?
A. No, it's been so long I've forgot.
Q. Is that your answer, you don't know whether or not.
A. No, I do not.
Q. Were Mrs. Atkins and Mr. Hunter there with you at the time you signed your name to this?
A. No, they wasn't.
Q. To the best of your recollection were you and Mr. Young the only people that were there at that time?
A. To the best of my recollection, yeah."
On further direct examination, the witness was asked and answered:
"Q. Mr. Kagy, who brought this to you to be signed?
A. You know, it's been so long I forgot about ever signing it but that's my handwriting there. The rest of it I don't know.
Q. Do you know whether or not that is Mr. Roger C. Young's handwriting.
A. It looks like it."
On recross, the witness was asked and answered:
"Q. So that I understand one of your answers, are you saying that all you really know about this case is that's your signature.
A. That's my signature.
Q. That's all you remember about it?
A. Yes."
From this testimony, we believe the trial court who heard and saw the witness, could conclude as did the witness himself, that all the witness remembered of the events and circumstances surrounding the affixation of his signature was that the instrument bore his signature.
At this time the court indicated that there was insufficient evidence and that there was not compliance with the statutory provisions to admit the will to probate. The petitioner requested a continuance of one week, which was granted.
At the continued hearing Edgar Kagy was again called and testified as follows:
"Q. Mr. Kagy, you testified in this case last week, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And you testified regarding certain documents. I hand you this document which purports to be the last will and testament of Roger Young, which is dated March 18, 1946, and I will ask you to tell the Court if that is the same document you testified about last week.
A. I will say that is my signature.
Q. Is that the same document you looked at last week?
A. That I can't say. It may bé. I believe it is.
Q. These are the same documents you looked at last week?
A. Yes."
The petitioner, Ruby Young, was then called and testified that she first saw the instrument "when they told me I had a right to go over to the Salem bank and look at my box" and that she had never seen the instrument before that time. She further testified that it bore the signature of Roger C. Young, a matter that is not disputed in this cause. The order denying probate was then entered, and this appeal perfected.
Appellant contends that the purported will should not be denied probate merely on the ground that the witnesses cannot remember whether it was properly executed. As authority for this proposition appellant cites Conway v. Conway, 14 Ill.2d 461, 153 N.E.2d 11. In that case our supreme court stated:
" if the attestation clause shows on its face that all the forms required by law have been met, and the signatures on the instrument are admittedly genuine, the presumption of due execution must prevail unless clear and affirmative proof shows the contrary." (14 Ill.2d at 466-467.) (Emphasis added.)
In 94 C.J.S. Wills 5 188(c) (3), at page 1019, the following statement is made:
"Thus, a mere request by the testator to witnesses to attest his will is a sufficient acknowledgment of his signature under a statute which requires signing by the testator in the presence of the witnesses or an acknowledgment by him that it is his act or deed, * # #»
As authority for the above proposition two cases are cited: Harp v. Parr, 168 Ill. 459, 48 N.E.2d 113, and Hobart v. Hobart, 154 Ill. 610, 39 N.E. 581. Both of these cases are distinguished from the instant case by the fact that in each of these cases an attestation clause was contained in the purported will. From an examination of these and other cases regarding the presumption of validity of a will which bears the genuine signature of a purported testator and witnesses, it is apparent that such presumption cannot be relied upon to make a prima facie case for admission to probate in the absence of an attestation clause. In re Estate of Willavize, 21 Ill.2d 40, 171 N.E.2d 21; In re Estate of Elkerton, 380 Ill. 394, 44 N.E.2d 148; In re Estate of Russell, 130 Ill.App.2d 839, 264 N.E. 2d 269; In re Estate of Hart, 79 Ill.App.2d 134, 223 N.E.2d 466.
In the instant case, where the purported will does not contain an attestation clause, the proponent of the will has the burden of proving its proper execution by other evidence. (In re Estate of Willavize, 21 Ill.2d 40, 171 N.E.2d 21; In re Estate of Thomas, 6 Ill.App.3d 70, 284 N.E.2d 513.) The appellant has furnished no such evidence. Here there was no positive testimony that the will was signed in the presence of any of the witnesses, nor is there testimony that at any time Roger C. Young acknowledged his signature to any of the witnesses; nor, in our opinion, can such signing in the witnesses' presence or acknowledgment be reasonably inferred from the evidence presented. There is no attestation clause and we cannot dispense with the required formalities under In re Will of Lagow.
In the absence of such evidence the circuit court refused to admit the purported will into probate. We find no reason to disturb this order. The order of the circuit court denying the admission into probate is therefore affirmed.
Order affirmed.
CREBS, J., concurs.