123 Mich. 310 | Mich. | 1900
Lead Opinion
In March, 1896, one Mariette Bennett, a spinster, died in Superior township, Washtenaw county,
The paper, as described in the petition for prohate, reads as follows, viz.:
“This is to certify that Jerome Schermerhorn should have what I leave, in regard to property and real estate and household goods. I leave to him all that I have under my lock and key, also in my inclosure. This paper should not be shown until-nine months after my death. It was my brother Frank’s wishes that, if Jerome Schermerhorn stayed with us, that he should have what was left on the place, and the place. It is my wishes that he should have it, too. He has been a man that has worked hard for it. I now leave two hundred dollars for his burial or mine. If he dies first, it shall go for his burial. If I die first, Mariette Bennett, it shall buy a marker for me. As I leave the balance of property to Jerome Schermerhorn, I leave this with- Mr. George W. Lough-ridge. He made my monument, and put it on my lot. This paper shall not be shown till after nine months after my death. Jerome, he gets rattle-headed sometimes before he knows what he is doing. He will leave his home, if I leave him, and would not appreciate what I left him. That will give him a chance to see whether I am living or whether I am not.
[Signed] “Mariette Bennett.
“Witnesses:
“Albert Knapp.
“Wm. Rowe.”
“‘I have made it, copied it myself, and I want it done just like it. It is Jerome’s, and it shall belong to him.’ * * * She said she took the copy off of the other will. ”
Nothing shows when this was; nor is there any testimony tending to show that the will was finished, or that such paper was ever executed. It cannot be said that the name of the testatrix was written by her in the body of the will probated. We have not, therefore, the case of a will signed by the testatrix, and attested by two subscribing witnesses. The will should not have been admitted in evidence.
The order is reversed, and a new trial directed.
Rehearing
Counsel apply for a rehearing upon the ground that the court has assumed that there was no proof received upon the trial tending to show that Marietta Bennett wrote the original will, when the bill of exceptions does not show that all of the testimony was included in it. Under the testimony shown in the record, there was a lack of proof of the proper execution of the will, and therefore the court erred in admitting an alleged copy. Previous to the time this copy was offered, a number of witnesses had been sworn by proponent, upon whose testimony the offer was apparently based. The witnesses were called in succession, and the record not only contains, in'narrative form, their direct, cross, and redirect examination, but it expressly states in several instances that their testimony in full is given. There is nothing to indicate that the testimony of any witness was omitted. In such case we should be overtechnical if we should hold that the copy was admissible upon the assumption that proof of the fact now asserted had been made. We must assume that the bill of exceptions contains all testimony bearing on the question raised. See Shaw v. Hoffman, 25 Mich. 162; Carter v. Snyder, 27 Mich. 484; Atlas Mining Co. v. Johnston, 23 Mich. 36; Hitchcock v. Burgett, 38 Mich. 501; Rose v. Jackson, 40 Mich. 29.
The motion for rehearing is denied.