Court Opinion

ID: 9829372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:15:48.81929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:00.546637
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
That the instrument was in form a will cannot be reasonably denied; and, as here-inbefore stated, there is not a single circumstance tending to show that a deed was intended. By the very terms of the instrument it was not to become effective until after the death of the maker of it; for it states, “it is my will that at my death the above named parties, Margaret Jane Wiley, my wife, and George W. Wiley, above named, enter into and take possession of the property, both real and personal, without further notice.” If it had been intended as a deed such language was uncalled for and without reason.
It is contended that this court should *968presume that the mater of the instrument and the justice of the peace, and ex officio notary public, knew how. to execute a will; and this court has so presumed when it has declared an instrument a will, which has, in its form, every earmark of a will. Certainly, if a notary public or a justice of the peace would know so much about executing wills, he ought to know something about drawing a deed, a form of instrument with which he is brought into more frequent contact. And yet when, as contended by appellants, he was asked to draw a deed he wrote an instrument, in form a will, denominated it a will, and failed to take any acknowledgment to it, although that was the chief duty incumbent on him as a notary public. He “might have taken an acknowledgment,” as claimed by appellants, but the fact- remains that he did not; and, if he was sent for as a notary public, he seemed to have forgotten it, and totally failed to perform the main duty incumbent on him as a notary public. He was not called upon, however, to act in the capacity of a notary •public; and no effort was made to show that he was requested to take an acknowledgment of the instrument. A delivery of the will to the county clerk or to George Wiley could not have changed its character and made it a deed.
The question which Frank Wiley said testator asked the justice of the peace indicated that he deemed the instrument of much more importance than a mere deed, which almost any one cah write; and the reply, that “it would stand the test in any court in Texas,” tends to indicate that he was speaking about a will, and not a deed.
There is not a particle of evidence tending to show that the justice of the peace was sent for to write a deed; but the only testimony on the character of' the instrument to be written, and which was written, was that of T. P. Morris, who' swore that Ma-gee “brought the will back with him;, that is what he claimed it was, and that is what the squire went out there to do; and that is what the squire came back and said he had written, and the duty he had performed for Louis Wiley.” On the cross-examination, speaking of Magee, he stated: “Old Squire Magee, I suppose, was like any other justice of the peace; he was not skillful, but he understood a will from a deed.” The witness stated that the will was a copy of a form in Say les’ Justice Guide, of - which Magee had a copy. There is no basis for the contention that the justice of the peace was sent for to write a deed, and was so ignorant that he used the form for a will by which to write it.
If Frank Wiley swore the truth when he stated that the testator requested Magee to place the instrument in the county clerk’s office, it has no probative force whatever as to the character of the instrument. He merely wanted the instrument to be filed in the county clerk’s office, not to be recorded, because he must have known that he had not acknowledged it, and that it could not be recorded. He wanted it in a safe place. If he had told the justice of the peace to have it recorded, that would not have completely altered a will, so as to make it a deed.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.