It has been held that in order to establish undue influence sufficient to avoid a will, the circumstances of its execution need not be inconsistent with every other hypothesis. All that is necessary is, that the evidence of the party attacking the will of a person of sound mind, on the ground of undue influence, shall preponderate over the evidence adduced and the presumptions prevailing on behalf of the proponents of the will. There is, however, also authority to the effect that it is not enough to show that the circumstances attending the execution of the will are consistent with the hypothesis that it may have been obtained by undue influence; it must be shown that such circumstances are inconsistent with a contrary hypothesis.

412. Declarations of Legatees, Heirs and Executors.-Declarations of legatees or others present at the time of the execution of a will may be so connected with it in point of time and circumstance as to make them admissible as part of the res gestae.8 If the declarant is the sole beneficiary under the will his admissions are binding as against interest, and admissible no matter when made and may be received to establish any fact in issue, including the fact of undue influence.10 In a will contest where there are several legatees all of whom are parties to the proceedings and their interests are several and not joint, the declarations of one of the legatees made either before 11 or after the execution of the will 12 are inadmissible as against the other legatees 13 on the question of testamentary capacity 14 or undue influence 15 in the absence of a showing of a conspiracy or that the

5. Gay v. Gillilan, 92 Mo. 250, 5 S. W. 7, 1 A. S. R. 712.

6. Compher v. Browning, 219 Ill. 429, 76 N. E. 678, 109 A. S. R. 346; Spier v. Spier, 99 Neb. 853, 157 N. W. 1014, L.R.A.1916E 692.

.7. Note: 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 742.

8. Batton v. Watson, 13 Ga. 63, 58 Am. Dec. 504; James v. Fairall, 154 Ia. 253, 134 N. W. 608, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 731 and note.

9. Note: 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 741. 10. In re Hewitt, 161 Mich. 536, 126 N.`W. 848, 21 Ann. Cas. 47 and note.

11. In re Goldthorp, 94 Ia. 336, 62 N. W. 845, 58 A. S. R. 400; Linebarger v. Linebarger, 143 N. C. 229, 55 S. E. 709, 10 Ann. Cas. 596.

12. James v. Fairall, 154 Ia. 253, 134 N. W. 608, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 731 and note; Linebarger v. Linebarger, 143 N. C. 229, 55 S. E. 709, 10 Ann. Cas. 596; In re Fowler, 156 N. C. 340, 72 S. E. 357, Ann. Cas. 1912A 85, 38

L.R.A. (N.S.) 745.

13. In re Dolbeer, 149 Cal. 227, 86 Pac. 695, 9 Ann. Cas. 795 and note; Hertrich v. Hertrich, 114 Ia. 643, 87 N. W. 689, 89 A. S. R. 389; In re Hewitt, 161 Mich. 536, 126 N. W. 848, 21 Ann. Cas. 47 and note; McAllister v. Rowland, 124 Minn. 27, 144 N. W. 412, Ann. Cas. 1915B 1006; In re Fowler, 156 N. C. 340, 72 S. E. 357, Ann. Cas. 1912A 85, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 745; McDonald v. McLendon, 173 N. C. 172, 91 S. E. 1017, Ann. Cas. 1918A 1063 and note.

Note: 21 Ann. Cas. 51.

14. In re Dolbeer, 149 Cal. 227, 86 Pac. 695, 9 Ann. Cas. 795 and note; Hertrich v. Hertrich, 114 Ia. 643, 87 N. W. 689, 89 A. S. R. 389; James v. Fairall, 154 Ia. 253, 134 N. W. 608, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 731 and note; MeDonald v. McLendon, 173 N. C. 172, 91 S. E. 1017, Ann. Cas. 1918A 1063 and note.

15. In re Dolbeer, 153 Cal. 652, 96

influence was the result of a common design.16 This rule prevents a legatee by his declarations manufacturing evidence to defeat the probate of the will to the prejudice of other legatees.17 But a special issue may be framed as regards the legatees charged with making such declarations, and in the trial of such issue it is competent to introduce in evidence declarations as to undue influence, made by the legatee both before and after the execution of the will.18 Previous declarations of a legatee, inconsistent with his testimony in court, may, after proper foundation is laid, be received for the purpose of impeaching or discrediting his testimony as a witness, although not competent for any other purpose.19 Admissions of one devisee are not admissible in evidence against another devisee claiming under the same will.20 So it has been held that declarations of an heir of the testator, who is not a party to the record, that he destroyed the will after the testator's death, are merely hearsay and not admissible as against other persons interested in the case.1 Declarations of executors appear to stand upon the same ground as those made by a legatee, and are inadmissible where there are several legatees or beneficiaries, since his interest and theirs are not joint interests, and his declarations from the nature of the case cannot be received without affecting the interests of the other parties.

413. Evidence of Forgery.-Where a will is attacked on the ground. of forgery the courts usually admit a true copy of the signature or handwriting of the testator for purpose of comparison with the one which is questioned, and then allow experts to testify as to the genuineness of the disputed signature.5 Proof of the handwriting by experts who have compared the writing with other writings of the person is admitted for the reason that in every person's writings there is a peculiar prevailing characteristic which distinguishes it from the hand

Pac. 266, 15 Ann. Cas. 207; James v.
Fairall, 154 Ia. 253, 134 N. W. 608, 38
L.R.A. (N.S.) 731 and note.

16. Hertrich v. Hertrich, 114 Ia. 643, 87 N. W. 689, 89 A. S. R. 389; Linebarger v. Linebarger, 143 N. C. 229, 55 S. E. 709, 10 Ann. Cas. 596. 17. Taylor v. Kelley, 31 Ala. 59, 68 Am. Dec. 150.

18. Linebarger v. Linebarger, 143 N. C. 229, 55 S. E. 709, 10 Ann. Cas.

596.

19. Note: 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 743. 20. Schierbaum v. Schemme, 157 Mo. 1, 57 S. W. 526, 80 A. S. R. 604. 1. Scott v. Maddox, 113 Ga. 795, 39 S. E. 500, 84 A. S. R. 263.

S. E. 357, Ann. Cas. 1912A 85, 38
L.R.A.(N.S.) 745.

3. Note: Ann. Cas. 1913A 87.

4. Throckmorton v. Holt, 180 U. S. 552, 21 S. Ct. 474, 45 U. S. (L. ed.) 663; Baird v. Shaffer, 101 Kan. 585, 168 Pac. 836, L.R.A.1918D 638 and

note; In re Connolly, 89 Wash. 168, 154 Pac. 155, L.R.A.1916D 635.

5. Scott v. Thrall, 77 Kan. 688, 95 Pac. 563, 127 A. S. R. 449, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.) 184; Baird v. Shaffer, 101 Kan. 585, 168 Pac. 836, L.R.A.1918D 638 and note; In re Gray, 88 Neb. 835, 130 N. W. 746, Ann. Cas. 1912B 1037, 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 319; In re Young, 59 Ore. 348, 116 Pac. 95, 1060, Ann. Cas. 1913B 1310.

2. In re Fowler, 156 N. C. 340, 72 Note: L.R.A.1918D 642-647.

writings of every other person, and therefore an expert, by studying characteristics as they appear in the writings of the person, may be able to determine with some degree of certainty whether a writing sought to be proved contains any of the characteristics of that of such person. The weight and effect of the opinion of experts in handwrit ing or the results of their comparisons are matters for the jury, who are not obliged to follow the opinion of the experts. Where the alleged signature is exactly like a genuine signature it has been held that this fact in itself is evidence of forgery. The origin of a will whosc authorship is disputed may also be proved by means of the differences or similarities in its spelling, observed upon comparison with writings proved to have been made by the person alleged to have written the disputed writing." It has also been held that the mark of an individual to an instrument may be proved by those who have seen him make his mark to other instruments, where the mark contains some peculiarity which they have noticed and observed, thus enabling them to distinguish it from other marks. But this class of evidence is dependent upon the familiarity of the witnesses with the peculiarities of the persons making the cross, and is not the subject of the opinion of experts whose only knowledge of familiarity of writings is obtained by comparison.10

Issues and Trial; Costs

414. Form of Issue.-The form of the main issue in will contests is frequently regulated by statute, and is whether the propounded instrument was a valid will.11 This is designated as the issue of devisavit. vel non,12 and involves essentially the question of the factum of the

6. In re Hopkins, 172 N. Y. 360, 65 N. E. 173, 92 A. S. R. 746, 65 L.R.A. 95 and note.

7. Note: L.R.A.1918D 650. 8. In re Connolly, 89 Wash. 168, 154 Pac. 155, L.R.A.1916D 635.

9. In re Young, 59 Ore. 348, 116 Pac. 95, 1060, Ann. Cas. 1913B 1310. Note: 65 L.R.A. 97.

10. In re Hopkins, 172 N. Y. 360, 65 N. E. 173, 92 A. S. R. 746, 65 L.R.A. 95. Generally as to expert evidence as to handwriting, see EXPERT AND OPINION EVIDENCE, vol. 11, p. 620 et seq.

11. Fraser v. Jennison, 106 U. S. 191, 1 S. Ct. 171, 27 U. S. (L. ed.) 131; St. Leger's Appeal, 34 Conn. 434, 91 Am. Dec. 735; South Norwalk Trust Co. v. St. John, 92 Conn. 168, 101 Atl. 961, Ann. Cas. 1918E 1090;

In re Wiese, 98 Neb. 463, 153 N. W. 556, L.R.A.1915E 832; Walker v. Walker, 14 Ohio St. 157, 82 Am. Dec. 474; In re Battis, 143 Wis. 234, 126 N. W. 9, 139 A. S. R. 1101.

12. Potts v. House, 6 Ga. 324, 50 Am. Dec. 329; Wells v. Thompson, 140 Ga. 119, 78 S. E. 823, Ann. Cas. 1914C 898, 47 L.R.A. (N.S.) 722; Magee v. McNeil, 41 Miss. 17, 90 Am. Dec. 354; Schlottman v. Hoffman, 73 Miss. 188, 18 So. 893, 55 A. S. R. 527; Rogers v. Rogers, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 503, 20 Am. Dec. 716; Bradford v. Bradford, 19 Ohio St. 546, 2 Am. Rep. 419; Taylor v. Hilton, 23 Okla. 354, 100 Pac. 537, 18 Ann. Cas. 385; Herster v. Herster, 122 Pa. St. 239, 16 Atl. 342, 9 A. S. R. 95; In re Adams, 220 Pa. St. 531, 69 Atl. 989, 123 A. S. R. 721; Hobson v. Moorman, 115

will.18 It has been said that no matter how many different persons may appeal, they can only raise one issue, and there can be but one trial of that issue, which is to determine the question of will or no will.14 In other jurisdictions, however, the court may divide the issues relating to undue influence and mental capacity, instead of submitting the one issue of devisavit vel non.15 Any issue which does not clearly submit some particular question of fact to the jury is objectionable. Thus, upon the question as to whether a disputed paper is, or is not, the last will of a deceased person, the whole question should not be submitted to the jury, but the issue should require the determination of some fact, the existence or nonexistence of which is material upon the legal question involved.16 It is to be observed that the legal effect and validity of the contents of the writing are not involved in the contest of a will.17

415. Right to Jury Trial.-Although there is some conflict of opinion on the question, the weight of authority is to the effect that there is no constitutional right to a trial by jury in a will contest.18 In a number of states, however, provision has been made by statute for such trial, and in others the parties to a will contest are not entitled as a matter of right to a trial by jury, but whether the issues shall be submitted to the determination of a jury is in the discretion of the court. 19 Where a court of chancery has jurisdiction in contests of wills it may be also required to certify an issue of devisavit vel non to a court of law to be tried therein.20

Tenn. 73, 90 S. W. 152, 5 Ann. Cas. 601, 3 L.R.A. (N.S.) 749; State v. Lancaster, 119 Tenn. 638, 105 S. W. 858, 14 Ann. Cas. 953, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 991; Malone v. Hobbs, 1 Rob. (Va.) 346, 39 Am. Dec. 263; Jesse v. Parker, 6 Grat. (Va.) 57, 52 Am. Dec. 102 and note; Smith v. Smith, 112 Va. 205, 70 S. E. 491, 33 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1018.

Note: Ann. Cas. 1914B 558. 13. Taylor v. Hilton, 23 Okla. 354, 100 Pac. 537, 18 Ann. Cas. 385.

14. Fraser v. Jennison, 106 U. S. 191, 1 S. Ct. 171, 27 U. S. (L. ed.) 131.

15. In re Rawling, 170 N. C. 58, 86 S. E. 794, Ann. Cas. 1918A 948.

16. Lane v. Hill, 68 N. H. 275, 44 Atl. 393, 73 A. S. R. 591.

17. Woodruff v. Hundley, 127 Ala. 640, 29 So. 98, 85 A. S. R. 145; Wells v. Thompson, 140 Ga. 119, 78 S. E: $23, Ann. Cas. 1914C 898, 47 L.R.A. (N.S.) 722; In re Battis, 143 Wis.

234, 126 N. W. 9, 139 A. S. R. 1101. 18. See JURY, vol. 16, p. 205.

19. Medill v. Snyder, 61 Kan. 15, 58 Pac. 962, 78 A. S. R. 307; Baird v. Shaffer, 101 Kan. 585, 168 Pac. 836, L.R.A.1918D 638; Davis v. Calvert, 5 Gill & J. (Md.) 269, 25 Am. Dec. 282; Kennedy v. Dickey, 100 Md. 152, 59 Atl. 661, 68 L.R.A. 317; Taylor v. Hilton, 23 Okla. 354, 100 Pac. 537, 18 Ann. Cas. 385; Desesbats v. Berquier, 1 Bin. (Pa.) 336, 2 Am. Dec. 448; Wikoff's Appeal, 15 Pa. St. 281, 53 Am. Dec. 597; Rudy v. Ulrich, 69 Pa. St. 177, 8 Am. Rep. 238; Miller's Estate, 179 Pa. St. 645, 36 Atl. 139, 39 L.R.A. 220; Shephard v. Shephard, 2 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 142, 46 Am. Dec. 41.

Notes: 15 Ann. Cas. 212-215; Ann. Cas. 1913C 856; Ann. Cas. 1914B 558.

And see JURY, vol. 16, p. 205. 20. Rogers v. Rogers. 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 503, 20 Am. Dec. 716.

416. Right to Open and Close.-On an issue devisavit vel non the proponents of the will have the affirmative of the issue and the right to open and close. Where, however, under the practice in a particular jurisdiction the issues on a will contest are raised by written grounds of opposition, controverted by a mere denial by the proponent, after the will has been formally proved before the court, the contestants are in effect plaintiffs and have the right to open and close.

417. Province of Court and Jury Generally. It is sometimes difficult in will contests to draw the line between questions of fact and questions of law. The construction and effect of a will are as a rule questions of law for the court, and not matters of fact for the determination of the jury. But the construction of a will may become a question for the jury, when the doubt as to its meaning arises from extrinsic facts not appearing upon the instrument, and the intention of the parties has to be sought for by a recurrence to the state of facts as they existed when the instrument was made. Mental capacity to make a will and the general tests as to mental capacity and what constitutes an insane delusion and its effect upon testamentary capacity are all questions of law. But the question whether there was fraud or undue influence in procuring the will, on the part of the plaintiff, and whether the will was executed by the testator without a knowledge of its contents are questions of fact within the exclusive province of the jury, which includes the credibility of witnesses; and the court is not at liberty to review and revise the action of the jury, unless there was not sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict against the will. As in any other case, substantial evidence tending to show lack of testa

1. Comstock v. Hadlyme Ecclesias- St. Luke's Home, etc. v. Association tical Soc., 8 Conn. 254, 20 Am. Dec. for Indigent Females, 52 N. Y. 191, 100; Potts v. House, 6 Ga. 324, 50 11 Am. Rep. 697; In re Beaumont, Am. Dec. 329; Rigg v. Wilton, 13 Ill. 216 Pa. St. 350, 65 Atl. 799, 9 Ann. 15, 54 Am. Dec. 419; Hardy v. Mer- Cas. 42. rill, 56 N. H. 227, 22 Am. Rep. 441; Williams v. Robinson, 42 Vt. 658, 1 Am. Rep. 359; Kerr v. Lunsford, 31 W. Va. 659, 8 S. E. 493, 2 L.R.A. 668.

2. Farleigh v. Kelley, 28 Mont. 421, 72 Pac. 756, 63 L.R.A. 319; In re Colbert, 31 Mont. 461, 78 Pac. 971, 80 Pac. 248, 107 A. S. R. 439, 3 Ánn. Cas. 952; Bell v. Davis, 43 Ókla. 221, 142 Pac. 1011, Ann. Cas. 1917C 1075; Blume v. Hartman, 115 Pa. St. 32, 8 Atl. 219, 2 A. S. R. 525. And see TRIAL, vol. 26, p. 1024.

Note: 69 Am. Dec. 455.

4. Warner v. Miltenberger, 21 Md. 264, 83 Am. Dec. 573.

5. Kimberly's Appeal, 68 Conn. 428, 36 Atl. 847, 57 A. S. R. 101, 37 L.R.A. 261; Hall v. Perry, 87 Me. 569, 33 Atl. 160, 47 A. S. R. 352; Johnson v. Johnson, 105 Md. 81, 65 Atl. 918, 121 A. S. R. 570.

6. Kimberly's Appeal, 68 Conn. 428, 36 Atl. 847, 57 A. S. R. 101, 37 L.R.A. 261.

Note: 63 A. S. R. 81.

3. Warner v. Miltenberger, 21 Md. 264, 83 Am. Dec. 573; Magee v. Mc- 7. Blume v. Hartman, 115 Pa. St. Neil, 41 Mass. 17, 90 Am. Dec. 354; 32, 8 Atl. 219, 2 A. S. R. 525.