Case Name: SKINNER'S WILL
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1902-03-03
Citations: 40 Or. 571
Docket Number: 
Parties: SKINNER’S WILL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 571–586

Head Matter:
Argued 6 February;
decided 3 March, 1902;
rehearing denied.
SKINNER’S WILL.
[62 Pac. 523, 67 Pac. 951.]
Time of Appealing—Excepting to Sureties.
1. Section 541 of Hill’s Ann. Laws , requiring the transcript on appeal to be tiled within thirty days from the expiration of the time allowed to object to the sureties on the undertaking, is complied with by filing the transcript within the required time from the justification of the sureties after being excepted by some of the respondents. An objection by one respondent serves to extend the time of the appellant as to all the respondents.
Identification of Evidence—Certificate Required.
2. Where an appeal from the county court to the circuit court is tried in the latter court on testimony given in the former, the evidence is sufficiently identified on appeal to the supreme court by the certificate of the county judge, and does not need the additional certificate of the circuit judge.
Substitution of Personal Representative—Notice.
3. Unless specially required by a statute or a rule of court notice need not be given of a motion to substitute a personal representative for a deceased party to a pending cause. See sections 38 and 524 of Hill’s Ann. Laws.
Right to Abandon Appeal and Perfect a New One.
4. Where exceptions are taken to the sureties on an appeal bond, the appellant is not required to produce the sureties for justification, but may abandon the appeal and take a new one: Van Auken v. Dammeier, 27 Or. 150, followed.
Appeal — Filing Bond After Expiration op Time.
5. Under Hill’s Ann. Laws, § 537, subd. 4, authorizing the court to permit an appellant to perform any omitted act necessary to perfect an appeal where the notice has been given in good faith, the circuit court may allow a new undertaking where the sureties have not been able to justify on the original, and the time for filing the bond has expired.
Rules — Amending Abstract by Assigning Errors.
6. Where an appellant, through mistake or inadvertence, has failed to print an assignment of errors in his abstract, as required by Rule 9 of the court (35 Or. 587, 598), he may supply the omission if a proper showing is made: Pleisclmer v. Barilo of McMinnville, 36 Or. 553, applied.
Appeal — Practice as to Filing New Undertaking.
7. Where confusion and irregularity concerning the undertaking on appeal have been caused by the death of appellant and objections to the sureties on the appeal bond, the preferable practice is for the substituted appellant to tender a new undertaking, and it will bo accepted in place of the first one.
Will — Testamentary Capacity.
8. A testator, when executing his will, was impaired in health and confined to his room, but able to dress himself and go to his meals. On the death of the chief beneficiary under a former will, he discussed with his neighbors and his lawyer the advisability of making another, and sent for the latter to draw a new will. The testator had made memoranda of several gifts, and discussed with the lawyer in detail the proposed gifts, giving intelligent reasons for the provisions he desired. The lawyer was of the opinion that he possessed testamentary capacity. He intelligently transacted other business at the time of making the will. His neighbors, intimate acquaintances, testified that the testator was peculiar, but transacted his own business and exhibited a singular shrewdness which was characteristic of him. Contestant’s witnesses believed him incompetent to dispose of his property, but related particular transactions which gave indications of his good sense. On two or three occasions the testator had aimlessly wandered about in a dazed condition, but these were of short duration and apparently caused by temporary physical ailments. A codicil to the will was executed under similar circumstances, except that he had grown physically weaker. Eeld, on a contest of the will and codicil, that the evidence did not show testamentary incapacity: Chrisman v. Chrisman, 16 Or. 127, cited.
Insane delusion Explained.
9. Where a testator, believing and acting upon neighborhood gossip, thought that his daughter-in-law would take measures to possess herself of his property, he was not possessed of an insane delusion which would invalidate his will, since the idea had its basis in an external fact, viz., the statements made by others, although they were untrue: Potter v. Jones, 20 Or. 239, 249, cited.
Necessity op Bublisiiing the Paper as a Will.
10. Under Hill’s Ann. Laws, § 3069, prescribing that a will or codicil shall be in writing, signed by the testator and attested by two competent witnesses subscribing their names in the presence of the testator, a will executed in proper form is valid without any publication or any statement by the testator that it is his will or codicil; it being only necessary to observe the formalities required by the statute: Luper v. Werts, 19 Or. 122, cited.
Evidence or Execution op Will.
11. The evidence of the execution of a will and codicil showed the signature of the testator and the subscribing witnesses. One of the witnesses testified that they attested the will and codicil in the presence of the testator, the other witness did not remember that the testator had signed the will, or that he saw the witness attest it, or that he requested the witness to sign. The latter witness, at the first probate of the will, signed the usual affidavit required for making proof to common form, deposing that she saw the testator subscribe the will and codicil and that she signed as a witness at his request and in his presence. The will and codicil contained the usual attestation clause. Held, that there was sufficient proof of the execution; if the fact of execution is not clearly proven, it is so nearly so that the balance of necessary evidence is supplied by the presumption that the legal formalities were complied with.
Will—manner on Requesting Witness to Sign.
12. Where an attorney drawing a will called a person to witness its execution, who signed as a witness, the assumption is warranted that this was done at testator’s instance; the attesting clause reciting that the witness signed at the request of the testator, and there being no direct denial that such was the case: Ames’ Will, 40 Or. 495, cited.
From Polk: Reuben P. Boise, Judge.
This is a proceeding originating in the county court to revoke the probate of the will of R. L. Skinner, deceased, resulting in a decree as prayed for. On appeal to the circuit court the probate was sustained, and now the objector appeals to this court. A motion to dismiss the appeal was overruled, Mr. Chief Justice Bean delivering the opinion, and the case heard in its order. The opinion on the merits was delivered by Mr. Justice Wolverton.
Motion Overruled ; Affirmed.
Decided 29 October, 1900.
Messrs. George G. Bingham and A.O.Condit, for the motion.
Mr. Webster Holmes, contra.
Note.-—The citation here given is to the statute as amended by Laws, 1899, pp. 227, 229.-—Reporter.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
Mr. Chief Justice Bean
delivered the opinion.
Where there are several respondents, and some of them except to the sufficiency of the sureties on the undertaking for an appeal, the appeal is not to be deemed abandoned as to the other respondents, although the transcript is not filed within thirty days from the expiration of the time allowed them to except to the sureties. It will be a sufficient compliance with the statute if it is filed within thirty days from the justification of the sureties on the exceptions filed by their corespondents.
Where a cause originates in the county court, and, on appeal to the circuit court is tried on the testimony given in the county court, it is not necessary, on appeal to this court, that the evidence be identified by the certificate of the circuit judge. It is enough if it is identified by the certificate of the county judge.
It is no valid objection to an order granting an application of an executor or administrator to be substituted in place of a deceased party that it was made on the day notice thereof was served upon the attorneys for the opposite party, as notice in such case is believed to be unnecessary, unless required by the court: Hill's Ann. Laws, § 38, 524.
Where sureties on an appeal bond are excepted to, the appellant is not'bound to produce them for justification, but may abandon the attempted appeal, and take a new one: Holladay v. Elliott, 7 Or. 483; Van Auken v. Dammeier, 27 Or. 150 (40 Pac. 89).
Where the sureties on an undertaking for an appeal, when excepted to, attempt to justify, but fail, the circuit court may, under section 537 of the statute, allow a new undertaking to be filed.
Decided 22 April, 1902.
For appellant there was a brief over the names of Webster and Frank Holmes, with an oral argument by Mr. William II. Holmes.
For respondents there was a brief over the names of Sherman, Gondit & Park and Geo. G. Bingham, with an oral argument by Mr. Bingham and Mr. A. O. Gondit.
Where an appellant omits to assign errors in his abstract, through mistake or inadvertence, he will be permitted to amend upon a proper showing: Fleischner v. Bank of McMinville, 36 Or. 553 (60 Pac. 603).
Where, after exceptions to the sufficiency of sureties on an undertaking for an appeal, the appellant dies pending their justification, and subsequently, and after the substitution of his executor or administrator, the sureties are produced and justify, after notice to the respondent, this court, on a motion to dismiss the appeal, will not assume to determine the regularity of the proceedings, but will allow the appellant to file a new undertaking here, when he indicates a willingness to do so. The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied, and appellant is allowed ten days in which to prepare and file assignments of error and a new undertaking.
Motion Overruled.