5 Redf. 431 | N.Y. Sur. Ct. | 1881
The contestant, Mrs. Brady, a daughter of the deceased, objects, first, that the will was not properly executed, inasmuch as McNamara was not, at the time of the execution of the alleged will, requested to sign it as a subscribing witness. I do not regard the objection as of any force. He had been previously requested by the testator to witness his will, to be drawn ; he was present at the time it was prepared, heard it read, heard the other witness requested to sign, and signed himself in the presence of the deceased. This I think a stronger case than that of Coffin v. Coffin (23 N. Y., 9).
The second objection is that, because the clause
It was the ancient rule that no paper in the nature of a will would be valid as such unless it contained the appointment of an executor, but such long since ceased to be the law. The statute makes provision for the appointment of an administrator with the will annexed, where no executor is named in the will. I think the will properly executed as such, and that it should be admitted to probate.
Decreed accordingly.