Case Name: William R. Baskin, Respondent, v. Stephen Baskin and others, Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1867-03
Citations: 36 N.Y. 416
Docket Number: 
Parties: William R. Baskin, Respondent, v. Stephen Baskin and others, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 36
Pages: 416–426

Head Matter:
36 N. Y. 416-Distinguished, 16 Hun 97, 100; 67 N. Y. 413.
William R. Baskin, Respondent, v. Stephen Baskin and others, Appellants.
The subscription of the testator and the.publication of the instrument are independent facts, each of which is essential to the complete execution of a will.
If the signature is written by another, and concealed from the view of the testator and the witnesses, the mere publication of the instrument as his - will cannot be deemed an acknowledgment that the unseen subscription was made by his direction.
When, however, the testator produces a paper bearing his personal signature, requests the witnesses to attest it, and declares it to be his last will and testament, he thereby acknowledges the subscription, within the .meaning of the statute.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, reversing the decree of the surrogate of Tates county, rejecting the will of William Baskin, deceased.
The will was executed on the 1st of December, 1865, and the testator died about five weeks afterward, being then eighty-nine years of age. He had made a previous will about thirteen years before, which he had deposited in the hands of JSTathan Eaplee, who was named in it as one of the executors. Two or three years before his death, he sent for Mr. Eaplee, who brought the will with him; and, on its being read to the testator, he said it was all right. The former will remained in Eaplee’s possession until the testator’s decease.
The draftsman of the last will was Henry Smith. He called on the testator, in pursuance of a message sent by one of his sons, two or three days before the date of the instrument ; and Mr. Baskin told him he wished him to draw his will. He came again for that purpose on the morning of the first of December. The testator was confined to his bed,
■ and his son John, who happened to call that morning, told him that Mr. Smith was there, and that he said he had como to write his will. He asked his father if he had not already made one. The old gentleman replied that he had; but that Eaplee did not come down, and he was going to make another. John attempted to dissuade him from doing so, expressing doubts as to his competency and his fear that it might make trouble. Finding that the old gentleman adhered to his purpose, he left the room; and Mr. Smith then had an interview of an hour or more with the testator, in the course of which he drew the will, no one else being present. Mr. Baskin spoke of having made a former will, and said he desired to make a little alteration. Smith suggested making a codicil, but the testator objected, saying that one of the witnesses was gone. Each clause of the will, as it was written, was read and approved. Upon its completion, the whole was read consecutively, in a loud tone of voice; and though he was somewhat deaf, Smith had no trouble in making him hear. He then sat up on the side of the bed, and wrote his name at the foot of the will, without assistance, and without spectacles. Mr. Smith, in compliance with his request, affixed his signature as an attesting witness; and Mr. Wilsey, the other witness, was then called in from the adjoining room. The will was in sight on the stand at the bedside, where it had just been signed. The testator said to Wilsey that he wanted him to sign this will. He then took the instrument, which was handed to him by Smith; and as he held it in his hand, Smith asked him if he acknowledged that to be his last will and testament, and he replied that he did acknowledge it to be his last will and testament. Wilsey then affixed his signature. ' The testator said: “ that kills the other will.” After the execution of the instrument, and on the same day, he told his son John that he and William were executors of this will, and added: “ I shall not tell you any thing more what is in it to-day, and you need not ask me.”
36 N. Y. 416-Relied on, 5 Redf. 275, 276.
There was no conflict of evidence as to the facts attending the execution of the instrument. Both the witnesses agree that the signature was affixed before Wilsey came into the room, and that the testator did not expressly state in his presence that he had signed the will.
The surrogate was of opinion that, in the absence of such a specific statement, there was not, upon this state of facts, -an acknowledgment of the subscription in the presence of Wilsey, within the intent of the statute in relation to wills; and accordingly he rejected the instrument. The General Term held otherwise, and from the judgment of reversal the present appeal was taken.
David B. Prosser, for the appellants.
Samuel H. Welles, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Porter, J.
The mere statement of the facts is decisive .of the issue. The will was prepared in the presence of the testator, and under his immediate direction. It received his approval, clause by clause. The whole instrument was then read to him, and he subscribed it in the presence of the draftsman, who, at his request, signed it as an attesting witness. The other witness, Mr. Wilsey, was called in from an adjoining apartment,- and the testator told him he wished him to sign the will. The instrument was then on the stand at his bedside, where he had just before subscribed it. Mr. Wilsey saw that his signature was already attached; and the testator, taking the paper thus executed in his hand, in presence of both the witnesses, declared it to be his last will and testament. In compliance with his request, Wilsey then subscribed the attestation clause, which stated that the will was- signed and published in presence of the attesting witnesses. It is clear that the testator intended a complete execution of the instrument; that with this view he signed it; that he supposed he was acknowledging that he had done so, when he requested Wilsey to attest the truth of the facts .stated in the certificate; and that Wilsey so supposed when he certified that he was a witness to the signature as well as the publication, f The remark of the testator that " this kills the other will," would have been wholly unmeaning if he did not intend to acknowledge the signature he had affixed to the will which he held in his hand.
The subscription and publication of a testamentary instrument are independent facts, each of which is essential to its complete execution. (2 R. S., 63, .§ 40.) 1 The requirement that the first shall he made or acknowledged in the presence of each of the witnesses who attest it, is to identify and authenticate the instrument as one subscribed by the party. The requirement of publication in presence of each, is to prevent imposition upon the testator by procuring him to execute and acknowledge a will or codicil, under pretense that it is a paper of a different nature. The two prerequisites are distinct in their nature, as well as their purpose, and an omission to comply with either is fatal to the validity of the instrument. There must be satisfactory proof of the subscription and publication of the will in the presence of two witnesses. In respect to the subscription, it is sufficient that it be either made, or acknowledged, in the presence of those who attest it. If it be unsigned, it is no will; and in that case, publication and attestation are alike unavailing. If signed by another than the testator, and the signature be purposely concealed from his view and that of -the attesting witnesses, the mere publication of the instrument as his last will and testament cannot fairly be deemed an acknowledgment that the unseen subscription was made by his direction. .i " Chaffee v. Baptist Missionary Convention, 10 Paige, 85, 91; Lewis v. Lewis, 1 Kern., 220; Rutherford v. Rutherford, Denio, 33.)
When, however, the testator produces a paper, to which he as personally affixed his signature, requests the witnesses to ittest it, and declares it to be his last will and testament, he does all that the law requires. It is enough that he verifies the subscription as authentic, without reference to the form in. which the acknowledgment is made; and there could be no more unequivocal acknowledgment of a signature thus affixed, than presenting it to the witnesses for attestation, and publishing the paper so subscribed as his will. (Peck v. Cary, 27 N. Y., 9, 29, 30; Tarrent v. Ware, 25 id., 425, note; Coffin v. Coffin, 23 id., 9, 15, 16; Nickerson v. Buck, 12 Cushing, 332, 342; Dewey v. Dewey, 1 Metc., 353; Gage v. Gage, 3 Curteis, 451; Blake v. Knight, id., 547; White v. Trustees of British Museum, 6 Bing. 310.)
The judgment of the Supreme Court should be affirmed.
All the judges concurred in the opinion of Portee, J., except Parker, J., who delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Grover, J., concurred.