Hight v. Wilson

Supreme Court

Hight v. Wilson

1 U.S. 94, 1 Dall. 94

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided January 1, 1784·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

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. 4th. Nor that the will should be subscribed by the witnesses. †

†

See post. Lewis Appellant versus Maris Appellee.

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

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. 4th. Nor that the will should be subscribed by the witnesses. †

†

See post. Lewis Appellant versus Maris Appellee.

Hight v. Wilson, 1 U.S. 94, 1 Dall. 94 (1784).

Pincite

1 U.S. 94 (Hight v. Wilson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related