Opinion ID: 1798053
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Will of Julian Leland Rutherford

Text: I Julian Leland Rutherford of Monroe County, Arkansas, being over the age of twenty one years and of sound and disposing mind and memory, do hereby make, publish and declare this to be my last will and testament, hereby revoking all wills here-to-fore made by me at any time. 1. I direct that all my just debts be paid as soon after my death as may be practicable. 2. I hereby nominate, constitute and appoint as Executor of my estate to serve without bonds Fred MacDonald. 3. I make the following specific bequests.... The instrument then sets out under alphabetically arranged paragraphs, separate bequests not germane to the issues before us, and after the last bequest the instrument ends in the decedent's handwriting as follows: Witness my hand and seal this 11 day of July, 1970. The appellants argue that the trial court erred in admitting the will to probate and argue that the instrument is not a legal testamentary instrument because it is not signed by the testator. The appellants further argue that a holographic will must be signed by the testator at the end of the instrument notwithstanding the dicta expressed to the contrary in Weems v. Smith, 218 Ark. 554, 237 S.W.2d 880. The appellees point out that the decedent's signature clearly appears in his own handwriting in two places on the face of the instrument and also on the envelope in which the instrument was sealed. The appellees also argue that either of these signatures, but in any event the three of them combined, completely satisfy the statute as to signature under Ark.Stat.Ann. § 60-404 (Repl.1971). The probate judge agreed with the appellees and we agree with the probate judge in this particular case. Prior to the enactment of our present probate code, by Act 140 of 1949, the legal requirements for the mode in the execution of all valid wills were set forth in five separate paragraphs under § 14512 of Pope's Digest, vol. II, as follows: Mode. Every last will and testament of real or personal property, or both, shall be executed and attested in the following manner, First. It must be subscribed by the testator at the end of the will, or by some person for him, at his request. Second. Such subscription shall be made by the testator in the presence of each of the attesting witnesses, or shall be acknowledged by him to have been so made to each of the attesting witnesses. Third. The testator, at the time of making such subscription, or at the time of acknowledging the same, shall declare the instrument so subscribed to be his will and testament. Fourth. There shall be at least two attesting witnesses, each of whom shall sign his name as a witness, at the end of the will, at the request of the testator. Fifth. Where the entire body of the will and the signature thereto shall be written in the proper handwriting of the testator or testatrix, such will may be established by the unimpeachable evidence of at least three disinterested witnesses to the handwriting and signature of each testator or testatrix, notwithstanding there may be no attesting witnesses to such will; but no will without such subscribing witnesses shall be pleaded in bar of a will subscribed in due form as prescribed in this act. It will be noted that this statute specifically refers to every last will and testament and specifically requires as the first requirement, that it must be subscribed by the testator at the end of the will or by some person for him at his request. Then requirement No. 5, as above set out, was the only provision pertaining to the holographic will and only had to do with the proof of the will where the entire body, as well as the signature thereto, was in the handwriting of the testator or testatrix. By Act 140 of 1949, Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 60-403, 60-404 (Repl.1971) holographic wills were excepted from the section pertaining to other wills, and holographic wills were given a separate section in the Digest. Under § 60-404 the requirements pertaining to holographic wills were completely removed from the requirements in the execution of other wills as provided in § 60-403. These two sections of the present probate code are as follows: 60-403. Execution. The execution of a will, other than holographic, must be by the signature of the testator and of at least two [2] witnesses as follows: a. Testator. The testator shall declare to the attesting witnesses that the instrument is his will and either (1) Himself sign; or (2) Acknowledge his signature already made; or (3) Sign by mark, his name being written near it and witnessed by a person who writes his own name as witness to the signature; or (4) At his discretion and in his presence have someone else sign his name for him, (the person so signing shall write his own name and state that he signed the testator's name at the request of the testator); and (5) In any of the above cases the signature must be at the end of the instrument and the act must be done in the presence of two [2] or more attesting witnesses. B. Witnesses. The attesting witnesses must sign at the request and in the presence of the testator. 60-404. Holographic will.Where the entire body of the will and the signature thereto shall be written in the proper handwriting of the testator, such will may be established by the evidence of at least three [3] credible disinterested witnesses to the handwriting and signature of the testator, notwithstanding there may be no attesting witnesses to such will.(Emphasis added). Thus, it is seen that the 1949 statute still retains the original primary requirements as to wills other than holographic and subsection a (5) of § 60-403, supra, requires that in the execution of wills (other than holographic) the instrument must still be signed by the testator or acknowledged by him in the manner set out in the statute and the signature must be at the end of the instrument. Turning now to the requirements for holographic wills under § 60-404; it is clear, as we have already said, this section does not require a signature of the testator at the end of the instrument. Weems v. Smith, supra . In comparing § 14512 of Pope's Digest, supra, with the two sections, §§ 60-403, 60-404 of the present code, there is considerable room for speculation as to the legislative intent in completely removing holographic wills from the requirements as applied to other wills and leaving other wills (other than holographic) to be executed by the signature of the testator... at the end of the instrument.... We shall not indulge in surmising as to the legislative intent in separating holographic wills from the requirements pertaining to other wills, for regardless of legislative intent, there is no question that Act 140 of 1949 separated holographic wills from the strict requirements as to manner and place of signature required in the execution of wills other than holographic under § 60-403, supra. Such relaxation as to holographic wills does not appear illogical when we consider that the purpose of a will is to make disposition of property to take effect upon death, and the purpose of the statute relative to signature, is to protect against fraud. Anthony v. College of the Ozarks, 207 Ark. 212, 180 S.W.2d 321. The appellants recognize the question involved in this case as one of first impression in Arkansas, and they urge us to follow the decisions of the California courts where similar cases have been decided under a statute similar to our own. The appellants quote extensively from the 1917 California case of In re Manchester's Estate, 174 Cal. 417, 163 P. 358, and point out that the facts in Manchester were almost on all fours with those in the case at bar and they urge us to adopt the rule laid down in Manchester and reach the same conclusion the California court reached in that case. We find no fault with the reasoning expressed by the California court in announcing its true rule in Manchester , but we are of the opinion that the California courts made better application of the rule in the cases following the Manchester decision. A review of these decisions points to a trend toward logic in determining the intention of the testator in placing his signature at a particular place on his will even under the true rule announced in Manchester . The Civil Code of California under which the Manchester will was written, then as now, provided as follows: A holographic will is one that is entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form,    and need not be witnessed. The pertinent portion of the will in Manchester recited as follows: January 14th, 1914 I, Matilda Manchester, leave and bequeath all my estate & effects, after payment of legal, funeral & certain foreign shipment expenses (as directed) to the following legatees, viz. The instrument ended as follows: Whereunto I hereby set my hand this fourteenth day of January, 1914. The name of the decedent did not appear on the paper anywhere except in the opening clause as above shown. The document was folded by the decedent and placed in an envelope, which was then sealed and indorsed by the decedent in her own handwriting with the words, My will, Ida Matilda Manchester. At her direction the instrument was placed in her safety deposit box where it was found after her death. The instrument was admitted to probate by the trial court but the Supreme Court of California reversed, holding that under the California Code and Webster's Dictionary, the required signature under the code, means the signature of the testator in his own handwriting written somewhere in or upon the document, with the intention by so writing it to authenticate the document. The name written at another place than the end of the document, and not for the purpose of authenticating it and indicating its completion, but merely to identify the person who is making the will, cannot be deemed to be a name `signed' to the document, unless that word is given a meaning entirely different from that which it is generally understood to have. The court then pointed out that the closing words, Whereunto I hereby set my hand this ... were apt words to a signature in attestation of a will or deed and intended to show that the decedent intended to sign immediately below but failed to carry out that intention. The court then distinguished the cases wherein different pages of holographic wills were written at different times, some of which were signed and some not, but properly admitted to probate under the theory of integration. The court in Manchester also distinguished a will in the Estate of Camp Cal. 233, (66 P. 227 where the final clause and signature of a holographic will was torn off and destroyed after the death of the testator and proof was made by two credible witnesses under the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court in Manchester points out that the initial clause of the will in Camp also contained the name of the testator, and the court in Camp said that this also established the fact that the document was intended by the decedent to be his last will, and that the writing by him of his name in that clause was itself a sufficient signature. The court in Manchester then announced the rule above referred to as follows: The true rule, as we conceive it to be, is that, wherever placed, the fact that it was intended as an executing signature must satisfactorily appear on the face of the document itself. If it is at the end of the document, the universal custom of mankind forces the conclusion that it was appended as an execution, if nothing to the contrary appears. If placed elsewhere, it is for the court to say, from an inspection of the whole document, its language as well as its form, and the relative position of its parts, whether or not there is a positive and satisfactory inference from the document itself that the signature was so placed with the intent that it should there serve as a token of execution. If such inference thus appears, the execution may be considered as proven by such signature. The court in Manchester concluded that: [T]he document in question was not signed by the testator, as required by section 1277, and that it is not entitled to probate. In the later 1927 California case of In re Morgan's Estate, 200 Cal. 400, 253 P. 702, the proffered instrument recited as follows: Last will and testament of Ynez Morgan February 21, 1925 I, Ynez Morgan, hereby will and bequeath all that I possess in real and personal property to my cousins, Kenneth and Alma Prior. It is my wish that my aunt, Mrs. A. G. Prior, be executrix without bond. This instrument was found among the effects of Ynez Morgan after her death and after contest the probate court found it to be a valid holographic will, entirely written, dated and signed by the testatrix, and the instrument was admitted to probate as the last will and testament of the decedent. In affirming the probate court the Supreme Court of California said: The name, Ynez Morgan, appears twice in the instrument, and the only question before the court on this appeal is whether or not the decedent, by writing her name in either, or both, of said places, thereby `signed' the will. The court then quoted and adhered to the true rule as laid down in Manchester, supra , and then said: The will here in question makes complete disposition of the property of the decedent and designates the person who shall have charge of the administration of her estate. It in all respects appears to be a completed document..... If the words, `Last will and testament of Ynez Morgan,' appeared at the end of the will, all doubt that the signature was intended to be and was adopted as the final executing signature in authentication of and in execution of the document as a completed testamentary act would be removed. Looking at the instrument as a whole, we are of the view that, by the use of those words in the beginning of the instrument, it was the intention of the testatrix to thereby execute the document as a will. So recently has this court discussed this question and reviewed the authorities that nothing further need be added. We are satisfied that the finding of the probate court to the effect that the testatrix duly authenticated and executed the instrument as her last will and testament is sustained by the inferences arising from an inspection of the document itself. The order appealed from is affirmed. In the still later 1964 case of In re Rowe's Estate, 230 Cal.App.2d 442, 41 Cal. Rptr. 52, the holographic will of Ethel C. Rowe was admitted to probate. The will simply recited as follows: Will of Mrs. Ethel C. Rowe Jan. 16th 1962 I appoint Mr. Emil R. Walter and Atty James Abercrombie as administrators with out Bond. I bequeath my orange and olive groves to Emil R. Walter. I bequeath all other real estate to my sister Mrs. Edith Cairns Russell if she survives me. Any bank deposits I have on my death can be used by Emil R. Walter to pay taxes. I consider all other relatives financially able to take of themselves. If any one/other than those named in this will claims any part of my possessions they are to receive one dollar.