Court Opinion

ID: 9868544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:40:45.381542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:51.478674
License: Public Domain

On Petition to Rehear.
Proponents’ petition to rehear is predicated upon the holding in our opinion heretofore rendered that there .is practically no evidence that the attesting witnesses signed the attestation clause in the presence of each other as required by the statute and, therefore, that the paper-writing could not be probated as the last will of Mr. Fann. We felt compelled to reach this conclusion by reason of the holding in Rose v. Allen, Ex’r, 41 Tenn. 23, 28, to the effect that where the witnesses deny their attestations “the evidence in favor of the will must be clear and full to substantiate it,” and upon the holding in Beadles v. Alexander, 68 Tenn. 604, that a presumption of compliance with the statute does not arise by the mere execution and witnessing of the paperwriting “if there be positive testimony on the subject by the subscribing witness or otherwise.”
In the petition to rehear it is suggested that “when the Court was dealing with the eases of Beadles v. Alexander and Rose v. Allen, supra, it did not have in mind a case where the will had an attestation certificate” as in the instant case. It is then earnestly asserted that in as much as it has been clearly established that Mr. Fann signed his name to this paperwriting, and also clearly established that Mr. Smith and Mr. Melton each signed as subscribing witnesses over an attestation clause which recited that they did so in the presence of each other, and that they are *135now discredited by tbeir testimony to the contrary; therefore, the recitations in “the attestation clause will govern and prevail”, and thereby permit the probate of this.will.
Our case of Simmons v. Leonard, 91 Tenn. 183, 18 S. W. 280, 30 Am. St. Rep. 875, is in point upon the insistence just stated. There were several reasons in that case why the will under consideration could not be admitted to probate, one of them being because of insufficient proof, that the testatrix had signed the paperwriting at the time one of the attesting witnesses as such signed it. Page 191, 192 of 91 Tenn., page 282 of 18 S. W. In that case the Court observed with reference to the attesting witnesses that “the certificate to which their names are attached (is) in proper form and reciting all necessary facts.” Page 183 of 91 Tenn., page 280 of 18 S. W. The evidence of the attesting witnesses did not sustain this recitation. The Court said: “We do not hold that the fact of due subscription can be shown alone by the subscribing witness ; on the contrary, it is well settled that such fact may be established by other persons, though his recollection fail him, or he become openly hostile to the will. . . . But the proof of other persons will not suffice, unless it in truth shows that all formalities requisite to a valid subscription were observed. There is no such proof of other persons in this case.” Pages 189, 190, 191, of 91 Tenn., page 281 of 18 S. W. The holding of the Court was: ‘ ‘ That the contested paper was duly executed as the will of 'Margaret Simmons is not established by sufficient competent proof. . . . The law prescribes the quantum of proof requisite in such a case; and neither the jury, nor Court sitting as a jury, is allowed to find in favor of the will on less evidence than that prescribed.” Page 194 of 91 Tenn., page 282 of 18 S. W.
*136The result of the holding in Simmons v. Leonard, supra, is that the presumption of regularity in compliance with the law in the execution of the will does not arise by reason of recitations to that effect in the attestation clause when there is positive testimony in the ease contrary to those recitations.
It is only upon the point just discussed that a new argument was made. It, therefore, becomes unnecessary to further consider the petition to rehear. It is denied.
All concur.