Court Opinion

ID: 9770878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:23:57.303636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:21.433291
License: Public Domain

G-ecrge Rose Smith, J., dissenting. I am unable to agree that this will was signed at the end. In the Owens case, cited by the majority, we held that the will must he signed at the end of the testamentary clauses. As far as a will like this one is concerned, the authorities are in complete agreement as to what constitutes the end of the will. The end is “the physical termination of the testamentary provisions.” Alexander on Wills, § 422. “Of course, if a dispositive provision is clearly below or after the testator’s signature, the will is not signed at the end. ’ ’ Atkinson on Wills, § 118. Here the testator had conveyed the house to his sister-in-law; so the sole dispositive clause in the will is the words, “and everything in it.” The last three of these words are clearly below the testator’s signature. To hold that this- will is signed at the end is simply to ignore the statute and every authority on the subject. It will not do to say that the statute was intended to prevent fraud, and here there is no suspicion of fraud. The requirement of two witnesses to an attested will is also intended to prevent fraud, but I do not suppose the majority would brush aside the need for two witnesses in cases where no fraud was suggested. The inescapable fact is that this will was not signed at the end, and no amount of judicial discussion can change that fact.