Hight v. Wilson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
This was a feigned issue to try the validity of a will, against the probate of which, a caveat had been entered in the register’s office. The plea was insanity in the testator; and evidence was given of habitual drunkenness, old age, weakness of body, shortness of memory, and a few incoherent expressions. The jury, however, in a very short time, gave a verdict for the plaintiff in the issue, who was the devisee in the will.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chief Justice,
in his charge to the jury, informed them, 1st. That it was not necessary that a will, devising real estate in this commonwealth, should be sealed. 2d. Nor that all the subscribing witnesses should prove the execution. 3d. Nor that the proof of the will should be made by those who subscribed as witnesses.1 4th. Nor that the will should be subscribed by the witnesses, (a)
See Lewis v. Maris, post, 278. See also Hock v. Hock, 6 S. & R. 47; Eyster v. Young, 3 Yeates 511; Harrison v. Rowan, 3 W. C. C. 580; Rosseter v. Simmons, 6 S. & R. 452; Walmsley v. Read, 1 Yeates 87; Arndt v.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Eyster v. YoungSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1803
- Fenn v. ReadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1791