ture may provide by law for the proof of wills that have been lost or destroyed. Clear and convincing evidence is usually required as to the existence of a lost will,13 and to entitle a party to give parol evidence of the contents of a will alleged to have been lost or destroyed, where there is not sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion of its absolute destruction, the party must show that he has made diligent search and inquiry after the will in those places where it would most probably be found, if in existence.14 A search for a will after the death of the decedent need not be shown, however, when it is claimed such will was fraudulently destroyed after such death, and there is evidence to support such claim.15 It seems that the fact of loss or destruction may be proved by either circumstantial or direct evidence,16 and it is for the court to decide in the first instance whether there is sufficient proof of the loss or destruction of, or sufficient inquiry and search for, a will alleged to have been lost or destroyed, to render secondary evidence of its contents admissible. On an application to probate an alleged copy of a will made a number of years after the original will was executed, it is incumbent upon the proponent to show what became of the original will, in whose custody it was placed, account for its nonproduction, and produce some competent proof of its contents, in order to authorize the county court to probate such a copy. 18 A petition for the probate of a will which alleges that the husband of the decedent after her death knowingly and fraudulently burned and destroyed her will avers that it was in existence at the time of her decease.19 The proponent of a lost will is bound to cite the heirs at law, since the relations of a testator are most likely to be the persons most conversant with his intentions, and around and about his person and house during his last illness.20 385. Jurisdiction.-According to some authorities courts of chancery have jurisdiction to set up a will which has been lost, suppressed, 168, 99 Am. Dec. 453 and note; Scott v. Maddox, 113 Ga. 795, 39 S. E. 500, 84 A. S. R. 263. 12. In re Patterson, 155 Cal. 626, 102 Pac. 941, 132 A. S. R. 116, 18 Ann. Cas. 625, 26 L.R.A: (N.S.) 654; Jones v. Casler, 139 Ind. 382, 38 N. E. 812, 47 A. S. R. 274; Voorhees V. Voorhees, 39 N. Y. 463, 100 Am. Dec. 458 and note. 13. Williams v. Miles, 68 Neb. 463, 94 N. W. 705, 96 N. W. 151, 110 A. S. R. 431, 4 Ann. Cas. 306, 62 L.R.A. 383; In re Miller, 49 Ore. 452, 90 Pac. 1002, 124 A. S. R. 1051, 14 Ann. Cas. 483, 15 Am. Dec. 395. Note: 50 L.R.A. (N.S.) 862. And see generally, EVIDENCE, vol. 10, p. 917 et seq. 15. Jones v. Casler, 139 Ind. 382, 38 N. E. 812, 47 A. S. R. 274. 16. Schultz v. Schultz, 35 N. Y. 653, 91 Am. Dec. 88. 17. Note: 50 L.R.A. (N.S.) 863. 18. In re Francis, 94 Neb. 742, 144 N. W. 789, 50 L.R.A.(N.S.) 861 and note. 19. Jones v. Casler, 139 Ind. 382, 38 N. E. 812, 47 A. S. R. 274. 20. Dickey v. Malechi, 6 Mo. 177, 277. or destroyed,1 and probate courts have in such cases concurrent jurisdiction with the chancery courts, unless their jurisdiction is so restricted by statutory law as clearly to indicate that the legislature did not design in any case to permit them to admit to probate a lost or destroyed will. Other authorities, however, hold that courts of chancery do not have any jurisdiction to establish a lost or spoliated will, and that jurisdiction in such matters belongs solely to the probate. courts.3 6 386. Proof of Contents.-Proof that a lost or destroyed will was executed must be accompanied by proof to a reasonable certainty of its contents. When a legal will is accidentally lost or destroyed the establishment of its contents is not the making of a new will, but a restoration merely of that which the testator himself made and left behind him to govern his estate. Therefore on proof that a will has been lost, it is generally held that its contents may be shown by parol in the same way as the contents of any other lost instrument, and it now seems to be settled that although a statute may require wills to be attested by two or more witnesses, the contents of a lost or destroyed will may be proved by a single unimpeachable witness. The best evidence of its contents is a copy or draft of the will if it can be obtained, and this is sufficient when satisfactorily proved. Secondary evidence of the contents of a lost will is usually permitted by the courts even where the will has been lost after probate or where the records with the 1. Jones v. Casler, 139 Ind. 382, 38 N. E. 812, 47 A. S. R. 274; Buchanan v. Matlock, 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 390, 47 Am. Dec. 622; Townsend v. Townsend, 4 Cold. (Tenn.) 70, 94 Am. Dec. 185; Dower v. Seeds, 28 W. Va. 113, 57 Am. Rep. 646. Note: 84 Am. Dec. 628. 9 Appeal, 87 Pa. St. 67, 30 Am. Rep. 340. Note: 11 Eng. Rul. Cas. 507. And see generally, EVIDENCE, vol. 10, p. 914 et seq. 7. Matter of Page, 118 Ill. 576, 8 N. E. 852, 59 Am. Rep. 395 and note; Dickey v. Malechi, 6 Mo. 177, 34 Am. 2. Dower v. Seeds, 28 W. Va. 113, Dec. 130; Dan v. Brown, 4 Cow. (N. 57 Am. Rep. 646. 3. Anderson v. Anderson, 112 N. Y. 104, 19 N. E. 427, 2 L.R.A. 175; Morningstar v. Selby, 15 Ohio 345, 45 Am. Dec. 579; Domestic, etc., Missionary Soc. v. Eells, 68 Vt. 497, 35 Atl. 463, 54 A. S. R. 888. And see supra, par. 365. 4. Scott v. Maddox, 113 Ga. 795, 39 S. E. 500, 84 A. S. R. 263; In re Ellis, 55 Minn. 401, 56 N. W. 1056, 43 A. S. R. 514, 23 L.R.A. 287. Y.) 483, 15 Am. Dec. 395 and note. Notes: 84 Am. Dec. 630; 77 A. S. R. 471; 38 L.R.A. 450. 8. In re Thompson, 114 Me. 338, 96 Atl. 238, L.R.A.1918A 911. Note: 38 L.R.A. 448. 9. Gaines v. Hennen, 24 How. 553, 16 U. S. (L. ed.) 770; Apperson v. Cottrell, 3 Port. (Ala.) 51, 29 Am. Dec. 239; Pratt v. Hargreaves, 77 Miss. 892, 28 So. 722, 78 A. S. R. 551; In re Miller, 49 Ore. 452, 90 Pac. 5. Foster's Appeal, 87 Pa. St. 67, 1002, 124 A. S. R. 1051, 14 Ann. Cas. 30 Am. Rep. 340. 277; Reeves v. Booth, 2 Mill. Const. 275, 44 (S. C.) 334, 12 Am. Dec. 679 and Atl. 393, 73 A. S. R. 591; Foster's note. will have been burned.10 But such evidence should be clear and convincing. The cases are not harmonious upon the questions whether part of a lost will can be admitted to probate, or whether there must be complete proof of all its contents. In some states there are statutes permitting and regulating the proof of lost wills which require the whole will to be established before it can be admitted to probate; of course, in those states, proof of a portion only would be insufficient.12 The majority of the cases, however, are to the effect that that portion of a lost will which can be established may be admitted to probate though there are other portions that cannot be established.13 Where the only part of a lost will that can be proven is a clause revoking a former will, such clause may be given effect for the purpose of showing a revocation.14 387. Declarations of Testator as Evidence.-It has been held by some courts that declarations of a testator to the effect that he was well satisfied with his will are not admissible, in conjunction with the testimony of witnesses who had seen it, to overcome the presumption of revocation which follows from the fact that the will was last seen in his possession when he was mentally sound,15 but the weight of authority is to the effect that the declarations of the testator may be shown, for the purpose of overcoming the presumption that a will has been destroyed animo revocandi, which arises from failure to find such a will after the testator's death.16 His declarations may also be received as evidence to strengthen and fortify the presumption that he has destroyed his will with such intention.17 The declarations of a testator as to his making a will cannot be received as primary evidence of due 10. Note: 38 L.R.A. 456. 11. Rhodes v. Vinson, 9 Gill (Md.) 169, 52 Am. Dec. 685; Clark v. Turner, 50 Neb. 290, 69 N. W. 843, 38 L.R.A. 433. Notes: 77 A. S. R. 471; 38 L.R.A. 446. 12. Note: 26 L.R.A.(N.S.) 654. 13. In re Patterson, 155 Cal. 626, 102 Pac. 941, 132 A. S. R. 116, 18 Ann. Cas. 625 and note, 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 654 and note; Jones v. Casler, 139 Ind. 382, 38 N. E. 812, 47 A. S. R. 274; Dickey v. Malechi, 6 Mo. 177, 34 Am. Dec. 130. Notes: 84 Am. Dec. 630; 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 654; 18 Ann. Cas. 630. 14. In re Patterson, 155 Cal. 626, 102 Pac. 941, 132 A. S. R. 116, 18 Ann. Cas. 625, 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 654 and note; Williams v. Miles, 68 Neb. 463, 94 N. W. 705, 96 N. W. 151, 110 A. S. R. 431, 4 Ann. Cas. 306, 62 L.R.A. 383. 15. In re Colbert, 31 Mont. 461, 78 Pac. 971, 80 Pac. 248, 107 A. S. R. 439 and note, 3 Ann. Cas. 952. 16. In re Walsh, 196 Mich. 42, 163 N. W. 70, Ann. Cas. 1918E 217; Behrens v. Behrens, 47 Ohio St. 323, 25 N. E. 209, 21 A. S. R. 820; In re Miller, 49 Ore. 452, 90 Pac. 1002, 124 A. S. R. 1051, 14 Ann. Cas. 277 and 84 Am. Dec. 619. note; Tynan v. Paschal, 27 Tex. 286, Notes: 107 A. S. R. 468; 38 L.R.A. 436; 50 L.R.A.(N.S.) 867; 3 Ann. Cas. 960; 10 Ann. Cas. 535. 17. Behrens v. Behrens, 47 Ohio St. 323, 25 N. E. 209, 21 A. S. R. 820. And see supra, par. 127. execution of a lost will in lieu of the evidence required by law,18 but it has been frequently held that declarations by a testator after execution of his will are admissible in case of its loss as corroborative evidence to prove its existence,19 and contents.20 The courts distinguish between the competency and the sufficiency of such declarations, and hold that the contents of a lost will cannot be proved solely by the declarations of the testator. The testimony of a witness as to the contents of a will, his knowledge being derived from testator's reading the will to him and not from having himself inspected it, is in effect only testimony as to the testator's declarations." 388. Burden of Proof; Presumptions. In a proceeding to probate a will which is lost the burden of proof is upon the proponent clearly to establish its execution. Having proven its execution the burden is on the contestant to show that it has been revoked. In a great majority of the instances in which wills are destroyed for the purpose of revoking them there is no witness to the act of destruction and all evidence of it perishes with the testator. The law does not require any evidence of such destruction to be preserved, and the fact that it has taken place must either remain unproved or be inferred from evidence showing that after due search the will cannot be found.5 Where a will which cannot be found is shown to have been in the possession of the testator when last seen the presumption is in the absence of other evidence that he destroyed it," animo revocandi, and the same 18. Tynan v. Paschal, 27 Tex. 286, L.R.A. 383; Clark v. Morton, 5 Rawle 84 Am. Dec. 619. (Pa.) 235, 28 Am. Dec. 667. Note: 107 A. S. R. 468. 19. Clark v. Turner, 50 Neb. 290, 69 N. W. 843, 38 L.R.A. 433; Williams v. Miles, 68 Neb. 463, 94 N. W. 705, 96 N. W. 151, 110 A. S. R. 431, 4 Ann. Cas. 306, 62 L.R.A. 383; In re Miller, 49 Ore. 452, 90 Pac. 1002, 124 A. S. R. 1051, 14 Ann. Cas. 277. 20. Matter of Page, 118 Ill. 576, 8 N. E. 852, 59 Am. Rep. 395 and note; Lane v. Hill, 68 N. H. 275, 44 Atl. 393, 73 A. S. R. 591. 1. Williams v. Miles, 68 Neb. 463, 94 N. W. 705, 96 N. W. 151, 110 A. S. R. 431, 4 Ann. Cas. 306, 62 L.R.A. 383. 3. Clark v. Turner, 50 Neb. 290, 69 N. W. 843, 38 L.R.A. 433 and note. 4. In re Miller, 49 Ore. 452, 90 Pac. 1002, 124 A. S. R. 1051, 14 Ann. Cas. 277. 5. Note: 28 A. S. R. 347. 6. In re Miller, 49 Ore. 452, 90 Pac. 1002, 124 A. S. R. 1051, 14 Ann. Cas. 277. 7. Throckmorton v. Holt, 180 U. S. 552, 21 S. Ct. 474, 45 U. S. (L. ed.) 663; Scott v. Maddox, 113 Ga. 795, 39 S. E. 500, 84 A. S. R. 263; Matter of Page, 118 Ill. 576, 8 N. E. 852, 59 Am. Rep. 395; Stetson v. Stetson, 200 Ill. 601, 66 N. E. 262, 61 L.R.A. 258; Griffith v. Higinbotom, 262 Ill. 126, 104 N. E. 233, Ann. Cas. 1915B 250; Aldrich v. Aldrich, 215 Mass. 164, 102 N. E. 487, Ann. Cas. 1914C 906 and note; Cheever v. North, 106 Mich. 390, 64 N. W. 455, 58 A. S. R. 499, 37 L.R.A. 561: In re Keene, 189 Mich. 2. Griffith v. Higinbotom, 262 Ill. 126, 104 N. E. 233, Ann. Cas. 1915B 250 and note; Clark v. Turner, 50 Neb. 290, 69 N. W. 843, 38 L.R.A. 433 and note; Williams v. Miles, 68 Neb. 463, 94 N. W. 705, 96 N. W. 151, 110 A. S. R. 431, 4 Ann. Cas. 306, 62 presumption arises where it is shown that the testator had ready access to the will and it cannot be found after his death. It will not be presumed that such instrument has been destroyed by any other person without the knowledge or authority of the testator, as that would be presuming a crime." The force of the presumption of revocation by the testator while varying greatly, being weak or strong according to the circumstances,10 is never conclusive, but may be overcome by proof that the will was not destroyed by the testator with intent to revoke it. It has been said, however, that the evidence to overcome the presumption that a lost will was destroyed by the testator animo revocandi must be clear, satisfactory, and convincing.12 The presumption of revocation is not overcome by proof that persons injuriously affected by the will had opportunities to destroy it.18 But the presumption is entirely overcome and rebutted when it appears that upon the execution of the will it was deposited by the testator with a custodian, and that the testator did not hereafter have it in his possession or have access to it.14 If the will is not shown to have been in the testator's possession, the failure to find it after his death furnishes no ground for a presumption of revocation.15 Therefore when it has been proven to have been intrusted to a third person, the burden of retracing it into the hands of the testator is then upon the party who asserts that it was revoked.16 This presumption is also rebutted by 97, 155 N. W. 514, Ann. Cas. 1918E 367 and note; In re Colbert, 31 Mont. 461, 78 Pac. 971, 80 Pac. 248, 107 A. S. R. 439, 3 Ann. Cas. 952; Williams v. Miles, 68 Neb. 463, 94 N. W. 705, 96 N. W. 151, 110 A. S. R. 431, 4 Ann. Cas. 306, 62 L.R.A. 383; Lane v. Hill, 68 N. H. 275, 44 Atl. 393, 73 A. S. R. 591; Schultz v. Schultz, 35 N. Y. 653, 91 Am. Dec. 88; Collyer v. Collyer, 110 N. Y. 481, 18 N. E. 110, 6 A. S. R. 405; In re Cunnion, 201 N. Y. 123, 94 N. E. 648, Ann. Cas. 1912A 834; Behrens v. Behrens, 47 Ohio St. 323, 25 N. E. 209, 21 A. S. R. 820; Foster's Appeal, 87 Pa. St. 67, 30 Am. Rep. 340; Brown v. Brown, 8 El. & Bl. 876, 92 E. C. L. 875, 4 Jur. N. S. 163, 27 L. J. Q. B. 173, 11 Eng. Rul. Cas. 491. Notes: 28 A. S. R. 347; 38 L.R.A. 433; 50 L.R.A. (N.S.) 864; 10 Ann. Cas. 535. 8. Schultz v. Schultz, 35 N. Y. 653, 91 Am. Dec. 88; Behrens v. Behrens, 47 Ohio St. 323, 25 N. E. 209, 21 A. S. R. 820. Notes: 28 A. S. R. 347; 50 L.R.A. (N.S.) 864. 9. Griffith v. Higinbotom, 262 Ill. 126, 104 N. E. 233, Ann. Cas. 1915B 250. 10. Note: 50 L.R.A. (N.S.) 865. 11. Williams v. Miles, 68 Neb. 463, 94 N. W. 705, 96 N. W. 151, 110 A. S. R. 431, 4 Ann. Cas. 306, 62 L.R.A. 383; Foster's Appeal, 87 Pa. St. 67, 30 Am. Rep. 340. Notes: 38 L.R.A. 433; 50 L.R.A. (N.S.) 865. 12. In re Colbert, 31 Mont. 461, 78 Pac. 971, 80 Pac. 248, 107 A. S. R. 439, 3 Ann. Cas. 952. 13. Scott v. Maddox, 113 Ga. 795, 39 S. E. 500, 84 A. S. R. 263; Collyer v. Collyer, 110 N. Y. 481, 18 N. E. 110, 6 A. S. R. 405. 14. Schultz v. Schultz, 35 N. Y. 653 91 Am. Dec. 88. 15. Lane v. Hill, 68 N. H. 275, 44 Atl. 393, 73 A. S. R. 591. 16. Williams v. Miles, 68 Neb. 463. 94 N. W. 705, 96 N. W. 151, 110 A. S R. 431, 4 Ann. Cas. 306, 62 L.R.A |