Codicil

[Lat. codidllus, q. v.] A supplement to a will, or an addition made by the testator, and annexed to, and to be taken as part of a testament, by which its dispositions are explained, added to, or altered * 2 £1.

Com. 600. 4 Kent's Com. 631. 1 Steph. Com, 646.

A testamentary disposition subsequent to a will

and by which the will is altered, explained, added to, subtracted from, or confirmed by way of republication, but in no case totally revoked.

2 Wooddes. Lect 284. De Grey, C. J., 3 WiU, 613.

For general purposes, a codicil is considered as a will, the distinction between them existing only in their relation to each other.

1 Powell on Devises, 20, note (4). 1 Steph. Com. 545.

By the new English Statute of Wills, 1 Will. IV., and 1 Vict. c. 26, the term mil is to be taken as including a codicil. And the rule is the same in the state of New-York. 2 Bev. Stat. [68, § 71,] 12, § IS. So that a codicil must be executed with the same formalities, and proved in the same manner as the will itself.

4 Kent's Com. 531. See 7 mirs i^.

F. JRep.

346. 12 Gill d Johns. 288.

The name, and, in some sense, the modem use of a codicil, are taken from the codieillus of the Roman law, which, however, was, in many respects, a very different instrument. See Codieillus. Two definitions of the term are given in the old dictionaries. The last in order is substantially the modem definition, but^the first, and apparently the preferred one, is in the following words: "A codicil is the will or testament of a man, concerning that which he would have done after his death, without the appointing of an executor.^' Termes de la ley. "A codicil is the same with a testament, but that it is toithout an executor."

Cowell. Blount.

This definition seems to be modelled after the idea of a codieillus in the Roman law, which was merely an informal, and subordinate, but distinct and independent species of will. See Codidllus. Its peculiar feature, however, k that which denies to a codicil the appointment of an estecutor. Dr. Wooddeson obterves on this pomt, as if in explanation of this peeulktrity, that codicils were never thought to require the appointment of a new executor to carry them into execution.

2 Wooddes. Lect. 284.

In this view, no doubt, we may still say with propriety that a codicil is " without the appointment of an executor." But that the old definition signified something more is obvious from the language of Swinburne, who expressly lays down the position that a codicil does not admit the appointment of an executor, and bases upon that circumstance the peculiar and principal distinction between it and a will.

Swinburne on Wills, part 1, § 6, n. 3, p.

13, It is hardly necessary to say that this doctrine of Swinbume's is not now law.

2 Wooddes.

Lect. uh. sup.