Leading Cases Upon the Law of Wills

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. 1892 edition. Excerpt: ...an insane man can have no intent such as is necessary to revoke a will. In Idley v. Bowen, 11 Wend. 227, it was held that a revocation by burning the will by the testator could be impeached by showini.-; the incompetency of the testator at the time of the act. Schultz v. Schultz, 35 N. Y. 653, is an instructive case to the same effect. In Nelson v. McGlffert, 3 Barb. Ch. 158, Chancellor wALVoRTH held it was competent to show that a will had been destroyed by a testator when his mind had become so far impaired that he was incompetent-to perform a testamentary act. The case of Johnson's Will, 40 Conn. 587, strongly supports the same view. So does the case of Collagen v. Burns, 67 Me. 449, as far as it goes. Many other cases in the state courts do. Late cases in the English court of probate are emohatical in the same direction. In one case it is said: The act done burning a. will by the testator can in no sense be his act, for he was out of his mind. In anothercasethe court said: All the destroying in the world, without intention, will not revoke a will; nor all the intention in the world, without destroying; there must be the two. In another case, --the famous case involving the will of Lord St. Leonards, --decided as late as 1876, the late Chief Justice Cocxnunx said: The consequences of a contrary ruling would be in the highest degree mischievous. To disallow oral proof might lead to the defeating of justice in many, if not in as many, instances as might arise from the court acting upon such testimony. Much more could be profitably quoted irom late English cases, in elucidation of this legal question, did these limits allow. 'l'he English cases have gone so far as to decide that a revocation...