Brown v. . Beaver

Decided August 5, 1856

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1856-08-05

Issue of dwisavit vel non, to try the validity of the will of Ephram Aminonds, before Manly, Judge, at the Pali Term, 1855, of Cherokee Superior Court. The instrument offered for probate appeared to be attested by the requisite number of witnesses, but one of them was, upon inquiry by the Court, pronounced- incompetent upon the score of his religious sentiments ; whereupon the propounders proposed to prove the paper as a holograph, according to the statute.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1902

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1856-08-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*517 Battle, J.

¶1 In tbe case of Harrison v. Burgess, 1 Hawks’ Rep. 384, a script was offered for probate as the holograph will of one Irvine. The caveators objected, because it was attested by one subscribing witness. The Court over-ruled the objection with this short and emphatic remark: “The

¶2 will is certainly not worse by having one subscribing witness; it will certainly answer the purpose of more certainly showing that this is the paper which she (the witness) saw deposited in the bureau. Going beyond the requisition in respect of proofs, certainly cannot annul that which comes up to them.” This reason is certainly decisive of the present case, and shows that his Honor was right in admitting proof of the script as a holograph will. This renders the question as to the competency of one of the-subscribing witnesses, unnecessary, and makes it improper for us to express an opinion upon it.

Per Curiam.

¶3 Judgment affirmed.