Book Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1907 edition. Excerpt: ...derived from statements of the testator himself. To exclude testimony as to these statements would be to shut out the only available proof. The courts therefore hold that the declarations, though hearsay, are admissible.22 So it is also in the case where a testator, having made two wills, the later of which contains a clause of revocation, which destroys the later one, and the question is as to whether there was an intention to revive the first. Proof of intention is at best a difficult matter, and, in the case of testamentary intention, well-nigh impossible to establish, except by evidence of the statements of the testator.23 Declarations of a testator are also received for other purposes, such as to corroborate direct testimony as to a will alleged to be a forgery, or to have been executed under undue influence or force.24 There is a decided conflict between the cases upon the subject of the admission of a testator's declaration as evidence against the validity of a will. The weight of authority is said to be against such admission to show forgery. Upon the question of revocation, however, there is more tendency to make "In Sugden v. Lord St. Leonards, 1 Prob. Div. 154, 225, 241, the question of the admissibility of declarations of a testator as to the will is fully discussed. See Mercer's Adm'r v. Mackin, 14 Bush (Ky.) 434, to the effect that such declarations are admissible, but are not alone sufficient proof to establish the will. The same principle of admissibility extends to declarations as to what sheets of writing made up the will. Gould v. Lakes, 6 Prob. Div. 1. It is sometimes provided by statute that a lost or destroyed will must be proved by at least two credible witnesses. In such a case it has been held that two...