Chase v. Lincoln
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an appeal from a decree of the judge of probate for this county, proving, approving, and allowing the last will and testament of Thomas Leggatt, Esq., deceased. Issue being joined to the country upon the sanity of the testator, at the time of executing the will, the respondent called two of the three subscribing witnesses to the will.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
observed that the legislature, in requiring three subscribing witnesses to a will, did not contemplate the mere formality of signing their names. An idiot might do this. These witnesses are placed round the testator to ascertain and judge of his capacity, and the heir has a right to insist on the testimony of all the three witnesses, to be given to the jury (3). They must therefore all be produced, if living, and under the power of the Court. If it be impossible to procure any one of them, the Court will proceed without him ex necessitate rel. But no such impossibility appears in…
2Cited by25 opinions
- State v. PikeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1870
- Stormon v. WeissNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1954
- Nunn v. EhlertMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- O'Connell v. DowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
- Thornton's Executors v. Thornton's HeirsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1866
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.