Billings v. Woody

D.C. Circuit

Billings v. Woody

167 F.2d 756, 83 U.S. App. D.C. 219, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2494

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 21, 1948

DocketNo. 9529

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 167 F.2d 756 (Billings v. Woody) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Billings v. Woody, 167 F.2d 756, 83 U.S. App. D.C. 219, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2494 (D.C. Cir. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a directed verdict sustaining the validity of a will. There was evidence that the attesting witnesses signed it before the testatrix did. It is of course preferable as well as usual for the testatrix to sign first but, though there are cases on both sides of the question, we think the validity of a will should not depend upon who signs it first; provided, of course, all sign at substantially the same time and in each other’s presence, which they did here. The requirement of the statute is only that “all wills and testaments shall be in writing and signed by the testator, or by some other person in his presence and by his express directions, and shall be attested and subscribed in the presence of the said testator by at least two credible witnesses * * D.C.Code (1940) § 19 — 103, 31 Stat. 1433, ch. 854, § 1626. This was done. We agree with the Court of Appeals of Maryland in declining to hold that a will is invalid “merely because the testator signed after the witnesses, in the same transaction, where the will in all respects complied with the express provisions of the statute.” Sellers v. Hayden, 154 Md. 117, 140 A. 56, 58, 57 A.L.R. 828. We find no basis for appellants’ contention that there was evidence of undue influence.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a directed verdict sustaining the validity of a will. There was evidence that the attesting witnesses signed it before the testatrix did. It is of course preferable as well as usual for the testatrix to sign first but, though there are cases on both sides of the question, we think the validity of a will should not depend upon who signs it first; provided, of course, all sign at substantially the same time and in each other’s presence, which they did here. The requirement of the statute is only that “all wills and testaments shall be in writing and signed by the testator, or by some other person in his presence and by his express directions, and shall be attested and subscribed in the presence of the said testator by at least two credible witnesses * * D.C.Code (1940) § 19 — 103, 31 Stat. 1433, ch. 854, § 1626. This was done. We agree with the Court of Appeals of Maryland in declining to hold that a will is invalid “merely because the testator signed after the witnesses, in the same transaction, where the will in all respects complied with the express provisions of the statute.” Sellers v. Hayden, 154 Md. 117, 140 A. 56, 58, 57 A.L.R. 828. We find no basis for appellants’ contention that there was evidence of undue influence.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 F.2d 756, 83 U.S. App. D.C. 219, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/billings-v-woody-cadc-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack