Ginder v. Farnum
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Philadelphia. On an issue of devisavit vel non, to test the validity of a writing purporting to be the will of Houston, it appeared that the instrument in question was written upon several sheets of paper, fastened together by a piece of tape, and signed by testator at the end thereof, with a seal affixed.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Philadelphia. On an issue of devisavit vel non, to test the validity of a writing purporting to be the will of Houston, it appeared that the instrument in question was written upon several sheets of paper, fastened together by a piece of tape, and signed by testator at the end thereof, with a seal affixed. The plaintiff called Knight, one of the subscribing witnesses, who proved he wrote the will under the instructions of testator, who signed it in his presence, and that the instrument at the trial was in precisely the same condition as when the signature was…
1Opinion of the CourtCoulter, J.
The position taken by the counsel for the plaintiff in error, and so earnestly maintained by him, is conceded. Every circumstance and fact necessary to make the execution of the will valid, under the act of Assembly, must be proved by two witnesses. In this case, however, the execution of the will was proved by two witnesses. One of the subscribing witnesses, being the scrivener who wrote it, proved the execution; and the partner of the deceased, who was perfectly acquainted with his handwriting, testified to the genuineness of the signature of the testator; the other subscribing witness,…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Maginn's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Covington EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
- Bryen's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- In re Estate of JacobySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Estate of CallahanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.