Hopkins v. Albertson

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Hopkins v. Albertson

2 S.C.L. 484

DecidedJuly 1, 1803

StatusPublished

This text of 2 S.C.L. 484 (Hopkins v. Albertson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hopkins v. Albertson, 2 S.C.L. 484 (S.C. Ct. App. 1803).

Pincite

Opinion

When, after hearing counsel in support of the motion, the court was of opinion that there should be a new trial. As the statute expressly requires, that there should be three witnesses to every will to pass lands j consequently, they should be produced, if alive, or within the jurisdiction of the court; if not, then their hand-writings should be proved ; for if only the hand-writings of two of them are proved, it does not come up to the meaning and intent of the statute ; for the name of the third witness, for aught that appears to the court, may have been forged ; in which case, it Would only be witnessed by two witnesses, which is not an execution of a will according to the requisitions of the statute, which requires three witnesses j though one credible witness may prove the signatures of all the three witnesses, as was determinecl in the case of Hopkins and De Graffen-reid.

Rule for new trial made absolute.

Present, Watties, Bay, Johnson, Trezevant, and , J3&EVARD.

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

When, after hearing counsel in support of the motion, the court was of opinion that there should be a new trial. As the statute expressly requires, that there should be three witnesses to every will to pass lands j consequently, they should be produced, if alive, or within the jurisdiction of the court; if not, then their hand-writings should be proved ; for if only the hand-writings of two of them are proved, it does not come up to the meaning and intent of the statute ; for the name of the third witness, for aught that appears to the court, may have been forged ; in which case, it Would only be witnessed by two witnesses, which is not an execution of a will according to the requisitions of the statute, which requires three witnesses j though one credible witness may prove the signatures of all the three witnesses, as was determinecl in the case of Hopkins and De Graffen-reid.

Rule for new trial made absolute.

Present, Watties, Bay, Johnson, Trezevant, and , J3&EVARD.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 S.C.L. 484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopkins-v-albertson-scctapp-1803.