Vines v. Clingfost
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Union Circuit Court. Hon. Shelton Watson, Circuit Judge. The supposed will was not signed by the testator — a signature consists of the act of writing the party’s name, and the intent. 2 Greenl. Ev., sec. 674. The testator’s name was not signed for him by either of the attesting witnesses; 10 Paige R. 91; the signing was by Cobb, who was not an attesting witness.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Union Circuit Court. Hon. Shelton Watson, Circuit Judge. The supposed will was not signed by the testator — a signature consists of the act of writing the party’s name, and the intent. 2 Greenl. Ev., sec. 674. The testator’s name was not signed for him by either of the attesting witnesses; 10 Paige R. 91; the signing was by Cobb, who was not an attesting witness. Dayton on Surrogates 1G2; Dig., secs. 4 and 5, Statute Wills; 14 Ark. 682; 17 lb. 319. The principal and only point is, was the will properly signed? On this point, the court is referred to Cornelius Will, 14 Ark. 675;…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice English
The will of Jacob Clingfost was admitted to probate, in the Probate Court of Union county, against objections interposed by his daughter, Mrs. Vines, and her husband, who appealed to the Circuit Court, where the judgment of the Probate Court, on inspection of the record, was affirmed, and they appealed to this court.
It was objected that the will was not signed by the testator.
John Ford, one of the subscribing witnesses, testified, that at the time the will was signed, the testator was very weak, and at his instance, Hugh B. Cobb guided the pen while the testator held it, and in this way…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Goldsmith v. GatesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
- Coleman v. WallsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1967
- Mutual Benefit Life Insurance v. BrownNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1878
- Patrick v. RankinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1974
- O'Neal v. Judsonia State BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.