Court Opinion

ID: 9809402
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:12:03.55132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:12.985123
License: Public Domain

Euboher, J.,
concurring in tire judgment of the Court, but not in. the conclusion arrived at, in discussing the first proposition :
As the case goes bach for a new trial, he will not enter into a discussion of that question now, further than to say that the opinions in Bynum v. Bynum and Cornelius v. Cornelius carry the doctrine of “being signed in the presence of the testator” as far as he is willing to go.
Something must be left to personal confidence. Were this not so, neither a blind man nor an illiterate man. could make a will. Though an illiterate man may see the witnesses sign the paper he has signed with a cross mark, yet he only knows it is his will because he has confidence in the party who -wrote it and read it to him.
EaiRCloth, C. J. I concur in Justice EuRCHesj view.