At the time of the filing of petition for citation to show cause why an issue should not be granted, the petitioner, Margaret Reilly, had no standing. She was not next of kin at the time of testator’s death. However, an answer was filed by one of the legatеes on his own behalf and for other parties in interest, and in due course — after replication — a hearing was had. The hearing judge heard the testimony, insisting, however, that an administration should be raised on the estate of testator’s father аnd that estate made a party to the record, which was done. The hearing judge treated the contest on its merits, аnd for good and sufficient reasons, as set forth in his opinion, refused to award an issue. No one has excepted sаve Margaret Reilly, the petitioner, and her brother, Thomas Reilly. They have no standing to except. If the will is invalid, an intestacy follows and the estate passes to the next of kin, John Reilly, father of testator. John Reilly, the father, died in Ireland in October, 1926, some six months after the date of testator’s death. The ancillary administrator in this jurisdiction has not excepted; and it is he alone who would take and transmit the estate to Ireland for administration and distribution under the laws of that country. Hоwever, as the respondents have not raised this question, we have examined the record with that critical care which an appellate court on appeal, or this court on exceptions, should bestow, and we find no rеasons whatever for disagreeing either with the facts or the application of the law by the hearing judge.
Testator was fully conscious of what he wanted done; he himself suggested the making of his will; the scrivener was brought in by members of his family for this spеcific purpose, and he intelligently dictated his wishes. The drugs which had been administered to alleviate his pains in no way affected his memory, and his mentality was clear in naming those of this family to
The argument of exceptants is largely confined to a criticism of the method of execution; they claim it to be improper as well as illegal. We cannot acquiesce in such contention.
By the Act of Jan. 27, 1848, P. L. 16 (supplementary to the Act of April 8, 1833, P. L. 249), it is provided that every last will and testament theretofore made or thereafter to be made, to which testator’s name is subscribed by his direction and authority, “or to which testator hath made Ms mark or cross,” shall be deemed and taken as valid, provided the other requisites under existing laws are сomplied with. In Main v. Ryder,
The hearing judge found testator’s name was subscribed to the will in his presence; that it was read over to testator and approved by him in the presence of twо witnesses; and that testator, in the presence of said witnesses, recognized his mark and his name as written by the scrivener.
He ruled, on the authority of Picconi’s Estate, 4 D. & C. 245; Novicki v. O’Mara,
As we are in accord with the findings of fact and rulings of law of the hearing judge, all exceptions are accordingly dismissed; costs to be paid by the contestants.