Court Opinion

ID: 9828326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:17:43.543689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:47.183523
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellee contends that it was immaterial that Armendariz sign his name to the instrument, since his name was written thereon, and was therefore adopted and approved by him as his will.
The instrument in question apparently is in the form of a certificate by a notary public, from the face of which it is manifest that Armendariz did not sign the same, nor did any other person sign it for him. Although the name appears in the body of the instrument, still it does not appear that it was written with the intention and purpose that it should be or was the signature of Armendariz to said instrument; the only per*559sons apparently signing said instrument being tbe notary and four witnesses.
Article 5335 of tbe Revised Civil Statutes of 1895, prescribing tbe requirements of a written will, are quite similar to section 127c23, Compiled Statutes of Nebraska. Tbe latter statute is as follows: “No will made witbin tbis state, except sucb nuncupative wills as are mentioned in tbe following section, shall be effectual to pass any estate, whether real or personal, nor to charge, or in any way affect tbe same, unless it be in writing, and signed by tbe testator, or by some person in bis presence, and by bis express direction, and attested and subscribed in tbe presence of tbe testator by two or more competent witnesses,” etc.
Tbe Supreme Court of Nebraska, construing their statute in the case of Murry v. Hennessey, 48 Neb. 608, 67 N. W. 470, says: “Thus it will be observed that tbe Legislature in unequivocal language has made it imperative that a will, other than a nuncupative, when not signed by the testator himself, must, in addition to other requirements, be signed by some person in bis presence, and by bis express direction, or tbe instrument will be invalid. Mere knowledge of the testator that his name is being signed by another, or that tbe signing was acquiesced in or assented to by the-testator, will not be sufficient. Tbe statute exacts more than tbis. It requires that tbe signing of a will by another must be done in pursuance of tbe previously expressed direction of the testator. Tbe statute is meaningless, if tbis is not its scope and purpose. Tbe same construction has been placed upon similar statutes in other states. Wait v. Frisbie, 45 Minn. 361, 47 N. W. 1069; Greenough v. Greenough, 11 Pa. 489 [51 Am. Dec. 567]’; Asay v. Hoover [5 Pa. 21], 45 Am. Dec. 714; Grabill v. Barr [5 Pa. 441], 47 Am. Dec. 420; Snyder v. Bull, 17 Pa. 60.”
We are of the opinion that tbe instrument in question does not comply with the mandatory requirements of our statute, which provides that the will “shall be in writing and signed by tbe testator, or by some other person by bis direction and in bis presence.” The authorities cited by appellee, viz.: Newton v. Emmerson & Talcutt Co., 66 Tex. 145, 18 S. W. 348; Lawson v. Dawson, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 361, 53 S. W. 64; Armstrong Executors v. Armstrong Heirs, 29 Ala. 538; Gardener v. Gardener, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 483, 52 Am. Dec. 740 — in our opinion, do not support appellee’s contention. Tbe motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.