Hock v. Hock
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. ERROR to the Common Pleas of Berks county, in a _ . , . ,. , , , _ _ , feigned issue, directed by the Registers Court, to try the validity of a paper, purporting to be the last will and testament of Jacob Hock, deceased. ^ ' The opinion of the Court will fully explain the only point in ‘ controversy.
Read the full summary
In Error. ERROR to the Common Pleas of Berks county, in a _ . , . ,. , , , _ _ , feigned issue, directed by the Registers Court, to try the validity of a paper, purporting to be the last will and testament of Jacob Hock, deceased. ^ ' The opinion of the Court will fully explain the only point in ‘ controversy. The case was argued in this Court, by Evans and Hopkins, for the plaintiff in error, who cited, Walmesleifs Lessee v. Read.(a) Eyster v. Young.(b) Arndt v. Arndt.(c) Szvinb. 52. 353. The counsel of the defendant in error declined to argue the case.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Gibson J.
Proof of execution must be made by two witnesses, each of whom must separately depose to all facts necessary to complete the chain of evidence, so that- no link in it may depend on the credibility of but one. Where the evidence is positive, there can be no difficulty, for the witnesses then attest the simple fact of execution itself; but where the evidence of one, or both, is circumstantial, each must make proof complete in itself; so that, if the act of assembly were out of the question, the case would be well made out, by the evidence of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Mullen v. M'KelvySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836
- Murry v. MurrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
- Reynolds v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1827