in some jurisdictions that upon a hearing on the application for the probate of a will, the evidence in support of the will is confined to the testimony of the attesting witnesses, 16 but the general rule is that where a will is contested neither party is limited to such testimony.17 Statutes of the kind now under consideration are not generally held to require that any one or more of the essential facts should be proved by all or any number of the attesting witnesses. The right is simply to have the attesting witnesses examined no matter what their testimony may be.18 According to some decisions the failure of a party in a will contest to call the attesting witnesses, though no statute requires that they should be called, may be looked on as a suspicious circumstance. 19 On the other hand it has been held that the failure of the proponent although present during the trial to give evidence in support of the will or to deny accusations of undue influence, does not necessarily convert his silence into an inference of fact to be drawn by the jury that, if he had testified, his testimony would have been prejudicial to the validity of the will.20

372. Contradiction of Witnesses.-The testimony of the subscribing witnesses to a will is not conclusive as to the sanity or insanity of the testator, but such witnesses may be impeached in the same manner as other witnesses, and may be confronted with their own prior statements or testimony in conflict with their present testimony. Where the summoning and examination of a subscribing witness is made mandatory the rule that the party who produces a witness cannot impeach or discredit him does not apply with full effect as regards such witness. The general rule is that either party may present evidence to overcome the adverse testimony of the subscribing witnesses, and a will may be sustain d in opposition to the positive testimony of one or more of the subscribing witnesses that it was not validly executed.

16. Mead v. Presbyterian Church, 229 Ill. 526, 82 N. E. 371, 11 Ann. Cas. 426, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 255.

17. Madson V. Christenson, 128 Minn. 17, 150 N. W. 213, Ann. Cas. 1916D 1101 and note, L.R.A.1916C 1214.

18. Gillis v. Gillis, 96 Ga. 1, 23 S. E. 107, 51 A. S. R. 121, 30 L.R.A. 143. 19. Rigg v. Wilton, 13 Ill. 15, 54 Am. Dec. 419.

20. Aldrich v. Aldrich, 215 Mass. 164, 102 N. E. 487, Ann. Cas. 1914C 906.

1. In re Howard, 5 T. B. (Ky.) 199, 17 Am. Dec. 60.

Mon.

2. Farleigh v. Kelley, 28 Mont. 421, 72 Pac. 756, 63 L.R.A. 319.

3. Otterson v. Hofford, 36 N. J. L.

129, 13 Am. Rep. 429; In re Claflin, 73 Vt. 129, 50 Atl. 815, 87 A. S. R. 693, 5 L.R.A. 261.

4. Thompson v. Owen, 174 Ill. 229, 51 N. E. 1046, 45 L.R.A. 682.

5. Madson v. Christenson, 128 Minn. 17, 150 N. W. 213, Ann. Cas. 1916D. 1101, L.R.A.1916C 1214.

6. In re Shapter, 35 Colo. 578, 85 Pac. 688, 117 A. S. R. 216, 6 L.R.A. (N.S.) 575 and note; Rigg v. Wilton, 13 Ill. 15, 54 Am. Dec. 419; Madson v. Christenson, 128 Minn. 17, 150 N. W. 213, Ann. Cas. 1916D 1101, L.R.A. 1916C 1214 and note; Jauncey v. Thorne, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 40, 45 Am. Dec. 424; Haynes v. Haynes, 33 Ohio St. 598, 31 Am. Rep. 579; Cheatham v. Hatcher, 30 Grat. (Va.) 56,

The testimony of attesting witnesses to a will may be overcome by any competent evidence. Such evidence may be direct, or it may be circumstantial; and expert and opinion evidence is just as competent as any other evidence,

373. Effect of Witnesses' Forgetfulness. It is a fundamental rule that the proof of the execution of a will does not depend upon the memory of the subscribing witnesses. A subscribing witness need not recollect the particulars attending the execution of the will, it being sufficient if he identifies his signature, and feels assured in his own mind that he would not have affixed it without first hearing the will acknowledged.10 Where the witnesses to a will when called as witnesses cannot remember the facts respecting the execution of the will, it may nevertheless be supported by other evidence, 11 including the testimony of those who were not subscribing witnesses.12 It has been said that an important element in enabling the court to find the requisite facts of execution of a will in spite of the fault of memory of the subscribing witnesses is the experience of the testator. Thus, it makes for the sufficiency of his will that the testator knew the legal requirements.13 The signature of a witness whose memory has failed him may be proven in the same manner as that of one who has died.14 One effect of a formal attestation clause is to raise a presumption that the will was duly executed although the witnesses are unable to recall the facts.15 A will attested by the names of certain persons who append

32 Am. Rep. 650; In re Claflin, 73 Vt. 129, 50 Atl. 815, 87 A. S. R. 693, 58 L.R.A. 261.

Pearson v. Wightman, 1 Mill. Const. (S. C.) 336, 12 Am. Dec. 636.

11. In re Carey, 56 Colo. 77, 136 Notes: 39 L.R.A. 719; Ann. Cas. Pac. 1175, Ann. Cas. 1915B 951, 51 1916D 1106.

7. Baird v. Shaffer, 101 Kan. 585, 168 Pac. 836, L.R.A.1918D 638.

8. In re Carey, 56 Colo. 77, 136 Pac. 1175, Ann. Cas. 1915B 951, 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 927 and note; Gillis v. Gillis, 96 Ga. 1, 23 S. E. 107, 51 A. S. R. 121, 30 L.R.A. 143; Jauncey v. Thorne, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 40, 45 Am. Dec. 424 and note; Cheatham v. Hatcher, 30 Grat. (Va.) 56, 32 Am. Rep. 650; In re Meurer, 44 Wis. 392, 28 Am. Rep. 591.

Notes: 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 928; 11 Ann. Cas. 428.

9. Lawyer v. Smith, 8 Mich. 411. 77 Am. Dec. 460; Peck v. Cary, 27 N. Y. 9, 84 Am. Dec. 220; Pearson v. Wightman, 1 Mill. Const. (S. C.) 336, 12 Am. Dec. 636.

L.R.A. (N.S.) 927 and note; Montgomery v. Perkins, 2 Metc. (Ky.) 448, 74 Am. Dec. 419.

Note: 114 A. S. R. 237.

12. Gillis v. Gillis, 96 Ga. 1, 23 S. E. 107, 51 A. S. R. 121, 30 L.R.A. 143.

13. Note: 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 951. 14. In re Claffin. 73 Vt. 129. 50 Atl. 815, 87 A. S. R. 693, 58 L.R.A. 261.

Note: 40 Am. Dec. 232.

15. Thompson v. Owen, 174 Ill. 229, 51 N. E. 1046, 45 L.R.A. 682; In re Veazey, 80 N. J. Eq. 466, 85 Atl. 176. Ann. Cas. 1914A 980; Greenough v. Greenough, 11 Pa. St. 489, 51 Am. Dec. 567; In re Claflin, 73 Vt. 129, 50 Atl. 815, 87 A. S. R. 693, 58 L.R.A. 261.

10. Flynn v. Flynn, 283 Ill. 206, 119 N. E. 304, Ann. Cas. 1918E 1034: Note: 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 170.

the word "witness" to their signatures may be admitted to probate, although they cannot remember that the formal requisites to the execution of the will were duly observed, and the will contains no formal, attestation clause.16 But where the witnesses testify that neither the attestation clause nor the will was read by them, and that the testator did not state the instrument to be his will, but at the time of signing merely acknowledged it to be his "hand and seal for the purposes therein mentioned," there is no proof of publication, and the will is inoperative, although the attestation ciause may state that there was publication."

18

374. Proof of Signatures.-When the witnesses to a will are alive and their testimony can be procured, a will may be proved, on application to admit it to probate, by the oath or affirmation of the witnesses. When one or more of the witnesses are dead, or for other reasons his or her testimony cannot be procured, proof of the handwriting of any such absent,19 deceased,20 or insane attesting witness is admitted.1 Proof of the handwriting of the subscribing witness in

Note: Ann. Cas. 1914C 905.

16. Mead v. Presbyterian Church L.R.A. 261. Trustees, 229 Ill. 526, 82 N. E. 371, 14 Ann. Cas. 426, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 25.5.

17. Remsen V. Brinckerhoff, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 325, 37 Am. Dec. 251. 18. Elston v. Montgomery, 242 Ill. 348, 90 N. E. 3, 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 420; Jackson v. Vickory, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 406, 19 Am. Dec. 522.

20. Woodruff v. Hundley, 127 Ala. 640, 29 So. 98, 85 A. S. R. 145; Calkins v. Calkins, 216 Ill. 458, 75 N. E. 182, 108 A. S. R. 233, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 393; Elston v. Montgomery, 242 Ill. 348, 90 N. E. 3, 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 420; Scott v. Hawk, 107 Ia. 723, 77 N. W. 467, 70. A. S. R. 228; Speer v. Speer, 146 Ia. 6, 123 N. W. 176, 140 A. S. R. 268, 27 L.R.A.(N.S.) 294; Jackson v. Van Dusen, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 144, 4 Am. Dec. 330; Jackson v. Vickory, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 406, 19 Am. Dec. 522; Jauncey v. Thorne, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 40, 45 Am. Dec. 424: Tynan v. Paschal, 27 Tex. 286, 84 Am. Dec. 619; In re Claflin, 73 Vt. 129, 50 Atl. 815, 87 A. S. R. 693, 58 L.R.A. 261; In re Meurer, 44 Wis. 392, 28 Am. Rep. 591.

19. Wells v. Thompson, 140 Ga. 119, 78 S. E. 823, Ann. Cas. 1914C 898, 47 L.R.A. (N.S.) 722 and note; Calkins v. Calkins, 216 Ill. 458, 75 N. E. 182, 108 A. S. R. 233, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 393; Elston v. Montgomery, 242 Ill. 348, 90 N. E. 3, 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 420; Scott v. Hawk, 107 Ia. 723, 77 N. W. 467, 70 A. S. R. 228: Speer v. Speer, 146 Ia. 6, 123 N. W. 176, 140 A. S. R. 268, 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 294; Hawes v. Humphrey, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 350, 20 Am. Dec. 481; Jackson v. Le Grange, 19 Johns. (N. 1. Calkins v. Calkins, 216 Ill. 458, Y.) 386, 10 Am. Dec. 237; Jackson v. 75 N. E. 182, 108 A. S. R. 233, 1 Vickory, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 406, 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) 393; Elston v. MontAm. Dec. 522; Jauncey v. Thorne, 2 gomery, 242 Ill. 348, 90 N. E. 3, 26 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 40, 45 Am. Dec. L.R.A.(N.S.) 420; Jauncey v. Thorne, 424; Engles v. Bruington, 4 Yates 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 40, 45 Am. Dec. (Pa.) 345, 2 Am. Dec. 411; Pearson v. 424: Watson v. Hinson, 162 N. C. Wightman, 1 Mill. Const. (S. C.) 336, 72, 77 S. E. 1089, Ann. Cas. 1915A 12 Am. Dec. 636; In re Claflin. 73 Vt. 870. 129, 50 Atl. 815, 87 A. S. R. 693, 58

Note: 40 Am. Dec. 232.

Note: Ann. Cas. 1914C 902.

3

such a case raises the presumption that the witness duly attested the will in the presence of the testator, and that all the statutory requirements have been complied with, unless the contrary appears on the face of the will. This is true even where the will was signed by the testator's making his mark. Sometimes additional proof of the handwriting of the testator is required. Thus, a statute may require proof by two witnesses of the handwriting of each of the subscribing witnesses and of that of the testator if he is able to write. Although it may be permitted by law it is not customary to take depositions of absent witnesses instead of proving the will by proof of their handwriting,8

375. Declarations of Deceased or Absent Witnesses.-The courts are not agreed on the question of the admissibility of declarations of deceased subscribing witnesses as to the testamentary capacity of the testator. Some courts hold such evidence inadmissible, while others take the view that declarations of a deceased subscribing witness to the effect that the testator was incompetent to make a will are admissible to rebut the prima facie effect of his attestation.10 There also appears to be a considering conflict of authority upon the admissibility of declarations of a deceased attesting witness as to the genuineness of the will alleged to have been attested by him.11 According to some decisions witnesses to a will who are out of the jurisdiction, and whose signatures have been duly proved, may be shown to have made statements contradictory of the fact contained in the attestation clause of the will, and to be of bad reputation for honesty and integrity, for the purpose of impeaching the effect of proof of their signature, but on the other hand it has been held that declarations of an absent, subscribing witness in support of the validity of the will cannot be received in evidence for any purpose whatever since it would be a violation of the rule of evidence that extrajudicial declarations, not under oath, cannot be received. 12

2. Woodruff v. Hundley, 127 Ala. 640, 29 So. 98, 85 A. S. R. 145; Hobart v. Hobart, 154 Ill. 610, 39 N. E. 581, 45 A. S. R. 151 and note; Calkins v. Calkins, 216 Ill. 458, 75 N. E. 182, 106 A. S. R. 233, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 393.

3. Woodruff v. Hundley, 127 Ala. 640, 29 So. 98, 85 A. S. R. 145; In re Hawkinson, 143 Wis. 136, 126 N. W. 683, 139 A. S. R. 1091.

6. Watson v. Hinson, 162 N. C. 72, 77 S. E. 1089, Ann. Cas. 1915A 870; Tynan v. Paschal, 27 Tex. 286, 84 Am. Dec. 619.

7. Tynan v. Paschal, 27 Tex. 286, 84 Am. Dec. 619.

8. Wells v. Thompson, 140 Ga. 119, 78 S. E. 823, Ann. Cas. 1914C 898, 47 L.R.A. (N.S.) 722 and note.

9. Speer v. Speer, 146 Ia. 6, 123 N. W. 176, 140 A. S. R. 268, 27 L.R.A.

4. Woodruff v. Hundley, 127 Ala. (N.S.) 294 and note. 640, 29 So. 98, 85 A. S. R. 145.

5. Scott v. Hawk, 107 Ia. 723, 77 N. W. 467. 70 A. S. R. 228; Watson v. Hinson, 162 N. C. 72, 77 S. E. 1089, Ann. Cas. 1915A 870.

10. Note: 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 295. 11. Note: 19 Ann. Cas. 1009. 12. Farleigh v. Kelley, 28 Mont. 421, 72 Pac. 756, 63 L.R.A. 319.

Effect of Probate

376. In General.-The admission or rejection of a will to probate is a judicial determination of the character and validity of the instrument presented as a will,18 and is in effect a judgment in rem.14 Proceedings to annul a will are likewise treated as proceedings in rem.15 A decree of a probate court admitting a will to probate is final and conclusive, if not reversed by the appellate court, or set aside and revoked by direct proceedings,16 and cannot be questioned collaterally.17 It may be proper to add that although jurisdictional facts are necessarily investigated by the courts probating a will, other courts may always reinvestigate the question as to whether the court probat

13. Steinkuehler v. Wempner, 169 N. E. 256, 122 A. S. R. 169; CouchInd. 154, 81 N. E. 482, 15 L.R.A. man v. Couchman, 104 Ky. 680, 47 (N.S.) 673; Bell v. Davis, 43 Okla. S. W. 858, 44 L.R.A. 136; Cecil v. 221, 142 Pac. 1011, Ann. Cas. 1917C Cecil, 19 Md. 72, 81 Am. Dec. 626; 1075; Holliday v. Ward, 19 Pa. St. Waters v. Stickney, 12 Allen (Mass.) 485, 57 Am, Dec. 671. 1, 90 Am. Dec. 122 and note; Cohen v. Herbert, 205 Mo. 537, 104 S. W. 84, 120 A. S. R. 772; State v. District Ct., 34 Mont. 96, 85 Pac, 866, 115 A. S. R. 510, 9 Ann. Cas. 418, 6 L.R.A. (N.S.) 617; Colton v. Ross, 2 Paige (N. Y.) 396, 22 Am. Dec. 648 and note; Holliday v. Ward, 19 Pa. St. 485, 57 Am. Dec. 671; Bowen v. Johnson, 5 R. I. 112, 73 Am. Dec. 49 and note; Townsend v. Townsend, 4 Cold. (Tenn.) 70, 94 Am. Dec. 184. Note: 129 A. S. R. 422. And see JUDGMENTS, vol. 15, p. 996 et seq.

14. Blacksher Co. v. Northrup, 176 Ala. 190, 57 So. 743, 42 L.R.A.(N.S.) 454; State v. McGlynn, 20 Cal. 233, 81 Am. Dec. 118; Cecil v. Cecil, 19 Md. 72, 81 Am. Dec. 626; State v. District Ct., 34 Mont. 96, 85 Pac. 866, 115 A. S. R. 510, 9 Ann. Cas. 418 and note, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 617; In re Horton, 217 N. Y. 363, 111 N. E. 1066, Ann. Cas. 1918A 611; Redmond v. Collins, 15 N. C. 430, 27 Am. Dec. 208; Bell v. Davis, 43 Okla. 221, 142 Pac. 1011, Ann. Cas. 1917C 1075; Bowen v. Johnson, 5 R. I. 112, 73 Am. Dec. 49 and note; Olney v. Angell, 5 R. I. 198, 73 Am. Dec. 62; Steele v. Renn, 50 Tex. 467, 32 Am. Rep. 605; In re Dardis, 135 Wis. 457, 115 N. W. 332, 126 A. S. R. 1033, 15 Ann. Cas. 740, 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 783 and note.

Notes: 68 Am. Dec. 447; 21 L.R.A. 680.

17. Blacksher Co. v. Northrup, 176 Ala. 190, 57 So. 743, 42 L.R.A. (N.S.) 454 and note; In re Warfield, 22 Cal. 51, 83 Am. Dec. 49; Churchhill v. Jackson, 132 Ga. 666, 64 S. E. 691, Ann. Cas. 1913E 1203, 49 L.R.A. (N.S.) 875; Chicago Title, etc., Co. v. Brown, 183 Ill. 42. 55 N. E. 632, 47 L.R.A. 798; Steinkuehler v. Wempner, 169 Ind. 154, 81 N. E. 482, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 673; Moore v. Tanner, 5 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 42, 17 Am. Dec. 35; In re Creighton, 91 Neb. 654, 136 N. W. 16. Ormsby v. Webb, 134 U. S. 47, 1001, Ann. Cas. 1913D 128; Holliday 10 S. Ct. 478, 33 U. S. (L. ed.) 805; v. Ward, 19 Pa. St. 485, 57 Am. Dec. State v. McGlynn, 20 Cal. 233, 81 Am. 671; Malone v. Hobbs, 1 Rob. (Va.) Dec. 118: In re Warfield, 22 Cal. 51, 346, 39 Am. Dec. 263; Schultz v. 83 Am. Dec. 49; Thomas v. People, Schultz, 10 Grat. (Va.) 358, 60 Am. 107 Ill. 517, 47 Am. Rep. 458: Kem- Dec. 335. And see JUDGMENTS, vol. merer v. Kemmerer, 233 Ill. 327, 84 15, pp. 867, 996 et seq.

And see JUDGMENTS, vol. 15, p. 637. 15. Wells v. Wells, 4 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 152, 16 Am. Dec. 150; Steele v. Renn, 50 Tex. 467, 32 Am. Rep. 605.