p. 293The probate of a paper propounded as the Will of Tracy H. Harris.Headnote
Will admitted to probate, but the paper propounded as a codicil thereto - rejected.Where the witnesses were called by the decedent to sign the paper lying before him, as witnesses, and not informed of the nature of it, their surmise that "if was a codicil' to his will, does not relieve the want
Where no- acknowledgment of the subscription was made to "one of -the witnesses, there; was - no such acknowledgment, as . the- statute requires.
Sidney S. Harris, Proponent in perrson. ■
A, B. ■ Oaf well,’/ut* Legatee under OodieÜ.
. J. 0. Spencer, Special Guardian for minoi' next of kin,
- Sidney S. Harris, one of the persons named as executors therein, propounded for probate the following paper, purporting to be a will and codicil: " " :
In the name óf God : Amén. I,-Tracy Hyde Harris, of-the city, county, and State of Hew .York, being of sound mind and memory, and considering the uncertainty Of-this life, do make, ordain,-publish, and'declare" this" to be my last will and testament, that is to say:
p. 299fact of seeing a sum named in the writing, and from decedent’s asking him to witness it; from the day of witness’ witnessing the paper until to-day, witness has been under the impression that the word “ codicil ” was at the left hand corner.of the page; immediately after signing the paper, witness had a conversation with Mr. Hayden in relation to it; witness made a remark to Mr. Hayden that the decedent had remembered his brother in the codicil we had signed; for, seeing the letters “ Ch.” in the paper, witness supposed it was a legacy to decedent’s brother; thinks Mr. Hayden said “yes;” at the time decedent said to witness that it was “ a mere form of witnessing my signature,” thinks he called, in that way, witness’ attention to his signature; called ■ witness’ attention from reading the paper, to the signature, and to his witnessing it.
The recollection of the witness is distinct as to the main points of the facts and circumstances ; when Mr. Hayden signed this, witness was standing at the same place where he was when he called Hayden; saw Hayden sign, as well as he could at about twelve or fifteen feet from him; saw him take the pen and sign; did not hear the decedent request Hayden to sign; saw him as if speaking to Hayden, but did not hear what he said; saw him point to the paper; when this witness signed the paper, the decedent was not at the desk, but may not have been far off; thinks he was going to the front part of the store.
Nothing appears to have been said by the decedent to the witness, Hayden, which had any reference to his (decedent’s) subscription of the paper propounded as a codicil. That being the case, it is not necessary to discuss whether the language used by him to the witness, Thompson, was a sufficient acknowledgment to him of the subscription. The subscription was not acknowledged, in contemplation of law, by the decedent
p. 300to have been so made, to each of the attesting witnesses. (3
R. S., 5th ed., p. 144, §§35-2.)
There was no declaration or publication to either. of the two witnesses that this paper was a will or codicil, nor were any words used by the decedent which implied such a declaration to them or either of them. On the contrary .he took pains to keep the witness Tompson in ignorance of what the paper was, - by telling him it Was nót “ necessary to read it.” There is no attestation clause, and the impression which.the two clerks seem to have got as to the nature. of the instrument was certainly not derived by them from the decedent at the time of their signing it.'-
Although the decedent has made a paper intending it for his will, he must comply with the statute. (Peck v. Cary, 27 N. Y. Rep., p. 24.)
If there be a reasonable doubt whether any one of the requirements of the statute has been complied with, probate must be denied. (Tarrent v. Ware, 25 N. Y. Rep., p. 429.)
And the Courts have gone no further than to hold that if the decedent requests the witnesses to sign, and at the same time declare it to be his will; there is a substantial compliance with the statutes. (Baskin v. Baskin., 36 N. Y. Rep., p. 416.) Ho-Cases hold that a request to sign as witness, without a declaration that it is a will, would be sufficient.
•There must be a decree admitting thé will to probate, and rejecting the paper offered as a Codicil. ’1 ' ■ ' j