McCurdy v. Neall
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
1. Where the attestation clause of a will is perfect, and one attesting witness testifies in corroboration of its accuracy as to the due execution thereof, the testimony of the other attesting witness, suggesting doubt, or his own want of recollection as to the transaction, is not enough to deny probate to the will. 2. A duly executed codicil to a will, which expressly confirms the provisions of (he will not inconsistent with itself, is a republication of the will, and…
Read the full summary
1. Where the attestation clause of a will is perfect, and one attesting witness testifies in corroboration of its accuracy as to the due execution thereof, the testimony of the other attesting witness, suggesting doubt, or his own want of recollection as to the transaction, is not enough to deny probate to the will. 2. A duly executed codicil to a will, which expressly confirms the provisions of (he will not inconsistent with itself, is a republication of the will, and supplies all omissions and remedies all defects, if any, in the execution of the latter. 3. Where the law involved is so well…
1Opinion of the Court
The Ordinary.
This is an appeal from the decree of the orphans court of Camden county, admitting to probate two instruments in writing as the last will and testament, and codicil thereto, of Dr. Samuel W. Neall, deceased, late of that county. The will is dated July 19th, 1883, and the codicil October 11th, in that year. The testator died March 29th, 1884. The witnesses to the will were Charles P. Tuttle and William Coyle. The witnesses to the codicil were John R. Depue and Taey G. Knight. Both instruments were drawn by Charles H. Felton, a scrivener, who also superintended the execution…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Swetland v. SwetlandNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926
- Ludwick v. FowlerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1946
- In Re StoryNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1927
- Johnson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1954