James v. Marvin
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an appeal from a decree of the court of probate, establishing the will of Peter James, deceased, made in April, 1819. This will was executed and published according to law.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from a decree of the court of probate, establishing the will of Peter James, deceased, made in April, 1819. This will was executed and published according to law. In the month of May following, the testator made and published another will, in which there was a clause inserted, expressly revoking all former wills ; but he did not cancel or destroy the first will, nor revoke it, in any other way than by making the last-mentioned will containing such clause of revocation. In the month of June following, he voluntarily burnt and destroyed his second will, and died, leaving his…
1Opinion of the Court
Hosmer, Ch. J.
If the will of Peter James, made in May, 1819, were in existence, the clause of express revocation, would, undoubtedly, revoke the prior will, now in question. The only enquiry before the court, is, whether the destruction of the latter will containing the revoking clause, has revived the former.
An express revocation, is a positive act of the party, which operates, by its own proper force, without being at all dependent on the consummation of the will in which it is found, and absolutely annuls all precedent devises. This principle was settled in Burtenshaw v. Gilbert, Cowp.…
2Cited by19 opinions
- Burtt WillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Ely v. . MegieNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Pickens v. DavisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
- Cheever v. NorthMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Colvin v. WarfordCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1863
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.