Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
24 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1884–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Allen v. Nesmithgreen2 sentences2025Fox v. Amarillo Nat’l Bank, 552 S.W.2d 547, 550 (Tex. App.— Amarillo 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (“The attestation clause is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein even where, although not here, an attesting witness contradicts those recitations.”); accord Allen v. Nesmith, 525 S.W.2d 943 , 945–46 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1975, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Nichols v. Rowan, 422 S.W.2d 21 , 23–24 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 1967, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (“The Texas cases uniformly have held that the declarations of the attestation clause showing due execution of the will are competent and admissible 2015See §59 of the Probate Code; Boyles v. Gresham, 263 S.W. 2d 935, 939 (Tex. 1954); Triestman v. Kilgore, 838 S.W. 2d 547, 547 (Tex. 1992); Allen v. Nesmith, 525 S.W. 2d 943, 945 (Tex. App. - Houston [1 st Dist.] 1975) writ ref'd n.r.e. 531 S.W. 2d 330 (Tex. 1975) (Purpose of the attestation clause, considering the evidence in favor of the proponent). | 3 | 4 |
Wilson v. Paulusgreen2 sentences2025The credible testimony of only one subscribing witness is sufficient to prove the attestation of a will which is not self-proving. § 256.153; In re Estate of Kam, 484 2 “A full attestation clause reciting compliance with all formalities of execution and signed by the witness is prima facie evidence of the validity of the will, although the witness’[s] memory is faulty, or he contradicts the facts stated in the clause, or where he is dead.” Id. (quoting Wilson, 15 S.W.2d at 571 ). 3 A notary public is not required to have persons who are executing notarized documents to sign the notary’s record 1980In Wilson v. Paulus, 15 S.W.2d 571 (Tex.Com.App. 1929), the Court approved the following rule: “A full attestation clause reciting compliance with all formalities of execution and signed by the witness is prima facie evidence of the validity of the will, although the witness’ memory is faulty, or he contradicts the facts stated in the clause, or where he is dead. | 2 | 7 |
Nichols v. Rowangreen2 sentences2025Fox v. Amarillo Nat’l Bank, 552 S.W.2d 547, 550 (Tex. App.— Amarillo 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (“The attestation clause is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein even where, although not here, an attesting witness contradicts those recitations.”); accord Allen v. Nesmith, 525 S.W.2d 943 , 945–46 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1975, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Nichols v. Rowan, 422 S.W.2d 21 , 23–24 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 1967, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (“The Texas cases uniformly have held that the declarations of the attestation clause showing due execution of the will are competent and admissible 2004Proponent cites Nichols v. Rowan, 422 S.W.2d 21, 23-24 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1967, writ refd n.r.e.), and Allen v. Nesmith, 525 S.W.2d 943, 946 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1975), writ refd n.r.e., 531 S.W.2d 330 (Tex.1975), *439 for the proposition that controverting testimony from a subscribing witness cannot destroy the prima facie case for the validity of the will established by the declarations contained in the attestation clause. | 2 | 6 |
State Farm Lloyds v. Nicolaugreen2 sentences2006The Charge In issue one, George argues that the trial court erred in “failing to submit a proper jury question on the attestation requirement.” “Rule 277 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure requires a trial court to submit ‘such instructions and definitions as shall be proper to enable the jury to render a verdict.’” State Farm Lloyds v. Nicolau , 951 S.W.2d 444, 451 (Tex. 1997) (quoting Tex. R. 2006The Charge In issue one, George argues that the trial court erred in “failing to submit a proper jury question on the attestation requirement.” “Rule 277 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure requires a trial court to submit ‘such instructions and definitions as shall be proper to enable the jury to render a verdict.’” State Farm Lloyds v. Nicolau, 951 S.W.2d 444, 451 (Tex.1997) (quoting Tex.R. | 2 | 2 |
Reese v. Franzheimgreen2 sentences1980The statements of the attestation clause may, however, be rebutted by proper evidence.” See also: Massey v. Allen, 248 S.W. 1067 (Tex.Com.App.1923); Reese v. Franzheim, 381 S.W.2d 329 (Tex.Civ.App.— Houston 1964, writ ref’d); Seydler v. Baumgarten, 294 S.W.2d 467 (Tex.Civ.App. — Galveston 1956, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Ludwick v. Fowler, 193 S.W.2d 692 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1946, writ ref’d n.r.e.); 40 A.L.R.2d 1223 . 1977Wilson v. Paulus, 15 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex.Com.App.1929, holding approved); Reese v. Franzheim, 381 S.W.2d 329, 330 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston 1964, writ ref’d n. r. e.). | 1 | 4 |
Gasaway v. Nesmithgreen1 sentence2026See Gasaway v. Nesmith, 548 S.W.2d 457, 458 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (noting that, “although the attesting affidavit is subject to contradiction by competent testimony, such testimony does not destroy the prima facie case -3- 04-25-00001-CV established by the attestation clause and only raises a fact issue for the trier of facts.”). | 1 | 1 |
Fox v. Amarillo National Bankgreen1 sentence2025Fox v. Amarillo Nat’l Bank, 552 S.W.2d 547, 550 (Tex. App.— Amarillo 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (“The attestation clause is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein even where, although not here, an attesting witness contradicts those recitations.”); accord Allen v. Nesmith, 525 S.W.2d 943 , 945–46 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1975, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Nichols v. Rowan, 422 S.W.2d 21 , 23–24 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 1967, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (“The Texas cases uniformly have held that the declarations of the attestation clause showing due execution of the will are competent and admissible | 1 | 1 |
Boyles v. Greshamgreen1 sentence2015See §59 of the Probate Code; Boyles v. Gresham, 263 S.W. 2d 935, 939 (Tex. 1954); Triestman v. Kilgore, 838 S.W. 2d 547, 547 (Tex. 1992); Allen v. Nesmith, 525 S.W. 2d 943, 945 (Tex. App. - Houston [1 st Dist.] 1975) writ ref'd n.r.e. 531 S.W. 2d 330 (Tex. 1975) (Purpose of the attestation clause, considering the evidence in favor of the proponent). | 1 | 1 |
Triestman v. Kilgoregreen1 sentence2015See §59 of the Probate Code; Boyles v. Gresham, 263 S.W. 2d 935, 939 (Tex. 1954); Triestman v. Kilgore, 838 S.W. 2d 547, 547 (Tex. 1992); Allen v. Nesmith, 525 S.W. 2d 943, 945 (Tex. App. - Houston [1 st Dist.] 1975) writ ref'd n.r.e. 531 S.W. 2d 330 (Tex. 1975) (Purpose of the attestation clause, considering the evidence in favor of the proponent). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Estate of Bendtsengreen2 sentences2011See In re Estate of Bendtsen, 230 S.W.3d 823, 825-26 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, pet. denied). 2011Id. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Dunlap's Willgreen2 sentences1979See also, In re Dunlap’s Will, 87 Okl. 95 , 209 P. 651 (1922); In re Moro’s Estate, 183 Cal. 29 , 190 P. 168 (1920). 1979See also, In re Dunlap’s Will, 87 Okl. 95 , 209 P. 651 (1922); In re Moro’s Estate, 183 Cal. 29 , 190 P. 168 (1920). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Seydler v. Baumgarten
green
2 sentences1980The statements of the attestation clause may, however, be rebutted by proper evidence.” See also: Massey v. Allen, 248 S.W. 1067 (Tex.Com.App.1923); Reese v. Franzheim, 381 S.W.2d 329 (Tex.Civ.App.— Houston 1964, writ ref’d); Seydler v. Baumgarten, 294 S.W.2d 467 (Tex.Civ.App. — Galveston 1956, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Ludwick v. Fowler, 193 S.W.2d 692 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1946, writ ref’d n.r.e.); 40 A.L.R.2d 1223 . 1964Seydler v. Baumgarten, Tex.Civ.App., 294 S.W.2d 467, ref., n. r. e. Since both of the attesting witnesses testified that they did not remember whether the document was published to them as a will, the attestation clause constitutes evidence that due publication was made. | 4 | 1964–1980 |
Dubose v. State
green
2 sentences2015See §59 of the Probate Code; Boyles v. Gresham, 263 S.W. 2d 935, 939 (Tex. 1954); Triestman v. Kilgore, 838 S.W. 2d 547, 547 (Tex. 1992); Allen v. Nesmith, 525 S.W. 2d 943, 945 (Tex. App. - Houston [1 st Dist.] 1975) writ ref'd n.r.e. 531 S.W. 2d 330 (Tex. 1975) (Purpose of the attestation clause, considering the evidence in favor of the proponent). 2004Proponent cites Nichols v. Rowan, 422 S.W.2d 21, 23-24 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1967, writ refd n.r.e.), and Allen v. Nesmith, 525 S.W.2d 943, 946 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1975), writ refd n.r.e., 531 S.W.2d 330 (Tex.1975), *439 for the proposition that controverting testimony from a subscribing witness cannot destroy the prima facie case for the validity of the will established by the declarations contained in the attestation clause. | 3 | 2004–2015 |
Massey v. Allen
green
2 sentences1980The statements of the attestation clause may, however, be rebutted by proper evidence.” See also: Massey v. Allen, 248 S.W. 1067 (Tex.Com.App.1923); Reese v. Franzheim, 381 S.W.2d 329 (Tex.Civ.App.— Houston 1964, writ ref’d); Seydler v. Baumgarten, 294 S.W.2d 467 (Tex.Civ.App. — Galveston 1956, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Ludwick v. Fowler, 193 S.W.2d 692 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1946, writ ref’d n.r.e.); 40 A.L.R.2d 1223 . 1956J., p. 1273; Deupree v. Deupree, 45 Ga. 415 ; Barnes v. Barnes, 66 Me. 286 ; Eliot v. Eliot, 10 Allen, Mass., 357; Fatheree v. Lawrence, 33 Miss. 585, 622 ; Chaffee v. Baptist Missionary Convention, 10 Paige, N.Y., 85, 40 Am.Dec, 225; Clarke v. Dun-navant, 10 Leigh, Va., 13-22; Ela v. Edwards, 16 Gray, Mass., 91; Orser v. Orser,. 24 K.Y. 51; O’Hagan’s Will, 73 Wis. 78 , 40 N.W. 649 , 9 Am.St.Rep. 763 .” The -languagé óf Massey, v. Allen, supra,, is sufficiently strong to support the proposition that the mere presence of signatures of subscribing witnesses, even without an attestation clause, r | 3 | 1956–1980 |
Ludwick v. Fowler
green
2 sentences1980The statements of the attestation clause may, however, be rebutted by proper evidence.” See also: Massey v. Allen, 248 S.W. 1067 (Tex.Com.App.1923); Reese v. Franzheim, 381 S.W.2d 329 (Tex.Civ.App.— Houston 1964, writ ref’d); Seydler v. Baumgarten, 294 S.W.2d 467 (Tex.Civ.App. — Galveston 1956, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Ludwick v. Fowler, 193 S.W.2d 692 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1946, writ ref’d n.r.e.); 40 A.L.R.2d 1223 . 1967The statements of the attestation clause may, however, be rebutted by proper evidence.” See also: Massey v. Allen, 248 S.W. 1067 (Tex.Com.App.1923); Reese v. Franzheim, 381 S.W.2d 329 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston 1964, writ ref’d); Seydler v. Baumgarten, 294 S.W.2d 467 (Tex.Civ.App.—Galveston 1956, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Ludwick v. Fowler, 193 S.W.2d 692 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1946, writ ref’d n. r. e.); 40 A.L.R.2d 1223 . | 2 | 1967–1980 |
Lemus v. Aguilar
green
1 sentence2020However, a document that does not meet the attestation requirement may be admitted to probate as a holographic will if it “is handwritten entirely by the testator” and the testator “affix[ed] a signature or initial to the document to execute the instrument.” Lemus, 491 S.W.3d at 56 ; see also TEX. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Boren v. Boren
green
2 sentences1983Close on its heels came Boren v. Boren, 402 S.W.2d 728 (Tex.1966) which followed McGrew in denying probate of a will since the witnesses had signed beneath the self-proving affidavit rather than beneath an attestation clause. 1983Close on its heels came Boren v. Boren, 402 S.W.2d 728 (Tex.1966) which followed McGrew in denying probate of a will since the witnesses had signed beneath the self-proving affidavit rather than beneath an attestation clause. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
In Re Estate of Moro
neutral
2 sentences1979See also, In re Dunlap’s Will, 87 Okl. 95 , 209 P. 651 (1922); In re Moro’s Estate, 183 Cal. 29 , 190 P. 168 (1920). 1979See also, In re Dunlap’s Will, 87 Okl. 95 , 209 P. 651 (1922); In re Moro’s Estate, 183 Cal. 29 , 190 P. 168 (1920). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Moser Co. v. First Church of Christ
green
1 sentence1977Thus, upon remand, it was for the trial court to determine the credibility and weight to be given the testimony presented on the issue. 525 S.W.2d 946 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Jones v. Whiteley
green
1 sentence1976Wilson v. Paulus, 15 S.W.2d 571 (Tex.Com.App. — 1929, holding approved); Jones v. Whiteley, 533 S.W.2d 881 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth 1976, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Nichols v. Rowan, 422 S.W.2d 21 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio 1967, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Reese v. Franzheim, 381 S.W.2d 329 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston 1964, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Seydler v. Baumgarten, 294 S.W.2d 467 (Tex.Civ.App. — Galveston 1956, writ ref’d n. r. e.). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Elwell & Heist v. The Universalist General Convention
green
2 sentences1976Section 84(b), supra; Elnell v. Universalist General Convention, 76 Tex. 514 , 13 S.W. 552 (1890); Jones v. Steinle, 15 S.W.2d 164 (Tex.Civ.App., Austin, 1929, ref’d). 1976Section 84(b), supra; Elnell v. Universalist General Convention, 76 Tex. 514 , 13 S.W. 552 (1890); Jones v. Steinle, 15 S.W.2d 164 (Tex.Civ.App., Austin, 1929, ref’d). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Jones v. Steinle
green
1 sentence1976Section 84(b), supra; Elnell v. Universalist General Convention, 76 Tex. 514 , 13 S.W. 552 (1890); Jones v. Steinle, 15 S.W.2d 164 (Tex.Civ.App., Austin, 1929, ref’d). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Deupree v. Deupree
green
2 sentences1956J., p. 1273; Deupree v. Deupree, 45 Ga. 415 ; Barnes v. Barnes, 66 Me. 286 ; Eliot v. Eliot, 10 Allen, Mass., 357; Fatheree v. Lawrence, 33 Miss. 585, 622 ; Chaffee v. Baptist Missionary Convention, 10 Paige, N.Y., 85, 40 Am.Dec, 225; Clarke v. Dun-navant, 10 Leigh, Va., 13-22; Ela v. Edwards, 16 Gray, Mass., 91; Orser v. Orser,. 24 K.Y. 51; O’Hagan’s Will, 73 Wis. 78 , 40 N.W. 649 , 9 Am.St.Rep. 763 .” The -languagé óf Massey, v. Allen, supra,, is sufficiently strong to support the proposition that the mere presence of signatures of subscribing witnesses, even without an attestation clause, r 1956J., p. 1273; Deupree v. Deupree, 45 Ga. 415 ; Barnes v. Barnes, 66 Me. 286 ; Eliot v. Eliot, 10 Allen, Mass., 357; Fatheree v. Lawrence, 33 Miss. 585, 622 ; Chaffee v. Baptist Missionary Convention, 10 Paige, N.Y., 85, 40 Am.Dec. 225; Clarke v. Dunnavant, 10 Leigh, Va., 13-22; Ela v. Edwards, 16 Gray, Mass., 91; Orser v. Orser, 24 N.Y. 51 ; O'Hagan's Will, 73 Wis. 78 , 40 N.W. 649 , 9 Am.St.Rep. 763 ." The language of Massey v. Allen, supra, is sufficiently strong to support the proposition that the mere presence of signatures of subscribing witnesses, even without an attestation clause, raise | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Underwood v. Thurman
green
2 sentences1956J., p. 1273; Deupree v. Deupree, 45 Ga. 415 ; Barnes v. Barnes, 66 Me. 286 ; Eliot v. Eliot, 10 Allen, Mass., 357; Fatheree v. Lawrence, 33 Miss. 585, 622 ; Chaffee v. Baptist Missionary Convention, 10 Paige, N.Y., 85, 40 Am.Dec, 225; Clarke v. Dun-navant, 10 Leigh, Va., 13-22; Ela v. Edwards, 16 Gray, Mass., 91; Orser v. Orser,. 24 K.Y. 51; O’Hagan’s Will, 73 Wis. 78 , 40 N.W. 649 , 9 Am.St.Rep. 763 .” The -languagé óf Massey, v. Allen, supra,, is sufficiently strong to support the proposition that the mere presence of signatures of subscribing witnesses, even without an attestation clause, r 1956In addition to the authorities cited in Massey v. Allen, see the annotation in 76 A.L.R. 617 reaching the conclusion from numerous cases that all courts which have *475 considered the question "rule that a complete attestation clause reciting an observance of all statutory requirements raises a presumption of the due execution of a will if there is no contest as to the genuineness of the signatures of the witnesses, or that of the testator, or after these signatures are proved to be genuine. * * * * * * "And such presumption exists, although there is a failure of memory by the witnesses as to | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Orser v. . Orser
green
1 sentence1956J., p. 1273; Deupree v. Deupree, 45 Ga. 415 ; Barnes v. Barnes, 66 Me. 286 ; Eliot v. Eliot, 10 Allen, Mass., 357; Fatheree v. Lawrence, 33 Miss. 585, 622 ; Chaffee v. Baptist Missionary Convention, 10 Paige, N.Y., 85, 40 Am.Dec. 225; Clarke v. Dunnavant, 10 Leigh, Va., 13-22; Ela v. Edwards, 16 Gray, Mass., 91; Orser v. Orser, 24 N.Y. 51 ; O'Hagan's Will, 73 Wis. 78 , 40 N.W. 649 , 9 Am.St.Rep. 763 ." The language of Massey v. Allen, supra, is sufficiently strong to support the proposition that the mere presence of signatures of subscribing witnesses, even without an attestation clause, raise | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Fatheree v. Lawrence
neutral
2 sentences1956J., p. 1273; Deupree v. Deupree, 45 Ga. 415 ; Barnes v. Barnes, 66 Me. 286 ; Eliot v. Eliot, 10 Allen, Mass., 357; Fatheree v. Lawrence, 33 Miss. 585, 622 ; Chaffee v. Baptist Missionary Convention, 10 Paige, N.Y., 85, 40 Am.Dec, 225; Clarke v. Dun-navant, 10 Leigh, Va., 13-22; Ela v. Edwards, 16 Gray, Mass., 91; Orser v. Orser,. 24 K.Y. 51; O’Hagan’s Will, 73 Wis. 78 , 40 N.W. 649 , 9 Am.St.Rep. 763 .” The -languagé óf Massey, v. Allen, supra,, is sufficiently strong to support the proposition that the mere presence of signatures of subscribing witnesses, even without an attestation clause, r 1956J., p. 1273; Deupree v. Deupree, 45 Ga. 415 ; Barnes v. Barnes, 66 Me. 286 ; Eliot v. Eliot, 10 Allen, Mass., 357; Fatheree v. Lawrence, 33 Miss. 585, 622 ; Chaffee v. Baptist Missionary Convention, 10 Paige, N.Y., 85, 40 Am.Dec. 225; Clarke v. Dunnavant, 10 Leigh, Va., 13-22; Ela v. Edwards, 16 Gray, Mass., 91; Orser v. Orser, 24 N.Y. 51 ; O'Hagan's Will, 73 Wis. 78 , 40 N.W. 649 , 9 Am.St.Rep. 763 ." The language of Massey v. Allen, supra, is sufficiently strong to support the proposition that the mere presence of signatures of subscribing witnesses, even without an attestation clause, raise | 1 | 1956–1956 |
In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of Abel
green
2 sentences1956We are not unaware of such cases as In re Abel’s Will, New York, 1910, 136 App.Div. 788 , 121 N.Y.S. 452 , holding that an attestation clause does' not give rise to a presumption of law'but is only presumptive evidence of such facts as maybe deduced or inferred from it naturally and that therefore the effect, of an attestation clause is simply to create 'very' strong presumptive evidence of other facts. 1956We are not unaware of such cases as In re Abel’s Will, New York, 1910, 136 App.Div. 788 , 121 N.Y.S. 452 , holding that an attestation clause does' not give rise to a presumption of law'but is only presumptive evidence of such facts as maybe deduced or inferred from it naturally and that therefore the effect, of an attestation clause is simply to create 'very' strong presumptive evidence of other facts. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Barnes v. Barnes
green
2 sentences1956J., p. 1273; Deupree v. Deupree, 45 Ga. 415 ; Barnes v. Barnes, 66 Me. 286 ; Eliot v. Eliot, 10 Allen, Mass., 357; Fatheree v. Lawrence, 33 Miss. 585, 622 ; Chaffee v. Baptist Missionary Convention, 10 Paige, N.Y., 85, 40 Am.Dec, 225; Clarke v. Dun-navant, 10 Leigh, Va., 13-22; Ela v. Edwards, 16 Gray, Mass., 91; Orser v. Orser,. 24 K.Y. 51; O’Hagan’s Will, 73 Wis. 78 , 40 N.W. 649 , 9 Am.St.Rep. 763 .” The -languagé óf Massey, v. Allen, supra,, is sufficiently strong to support the proposition that the mere presence of signatures of subscribing witnesses, even without an attestation clause, r 1956J., p. 1273; Deupree v. Deupree, 45 Ga. 415 ; Barnes v. Barnes, 66 Me. 286 ; Eliot v. Eliot, 10 Allen, Mass., 357; Fatheree v. Lawrence, 33 Miss. 585, 622 ; Chaffee v. Baptist Missionary Convention, 10 Paige, N.Y., 85, 40 Am.Dec. 225; Clarke v. Dunnavant, 10 Leigh, Va., 13-22; Ela v. Edwards, 16 Gray, Mass., 91; Orser v. Orser, 24 N.Y. 51 ; O'Hagan's Will, 73 Wis. 78 , 40 N.W. 649 , 9 Am.St.Rep. 763 ." The language of Massey v. Allen, supra, is sufficiently strong to support the proposition that the mere presence of signatures of subscribing witnesses, even without an attestation clause, raise | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Will of O'Hagan
neutral
2 sentences1956J., p. 1273; Deupree v. Deupree, 45 Ga. 415 ; Barnes v. Barnes, 66 Me. 286 ; Eliot v. Eliot, 10 Allen, Mass., 357; Fatheree v. Lawrence, 33 Miss. 585, 622 ; Chaffee v. Baptist Missionary Convention, 10 Paige, N.Y., 85, 40 Am.Dec, 225; Clarke v. Dun-navant, 10 Leigh, Va., 13-22; Ela v. Edwards, 16 Gray, Mass., 91; Orser v. Orser,. 24 K.Y. 51; O’Hagan’s Will, 73 Wis. 78 , 40 N.W. 649 , 9 Am.St.Rep. 763 .” The -languagé óf Massey, v. Allen, supra,, is sufficiently strong to support the proposition that the mere presence of signatures of subscribing witnesses, even without an attestation clause, r 1956J., p. 1273; Deupree v. Deupree, 45 Ga. 415 ; Barnes v. Barnes, 66 Me. 286 ; Eliot v. Eliot, 10 Allen, Mass., 357; Fatheree v. Lawrence, 33 Miss. 585, 622 ; Chaffee v. Baptist Missionary Convention, 10 Paige, N.Y., 85, 40 Am.Dec, 225; Clarke v. Dun-navant, 10 Leigh, Va., 13-22; Ela v. Edwards, 16 Gray, Mass., 91; Orser v. Orser,. 24 K.Y. 51; O’Hagan’s Will, 73 Wis. 78 , 40 N.W. 649 , 9 Am.St.Rep. 763 .” The -languagé óf Massey, v. Allen, supra,, is sufficiently strong to support the proposition that the mere presence of signatures of subscribing witnesses, even without an attestation clause, r | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Kelly v. Settegast
green
2 sentences1930The case relied on by appellants, to support their contention that the due execution of the will was not shown because there was no evidence that the will was read by or to the testator or that he knew its contents at the time of its execution, is the case of Kelly v. Settegast, 68 Tex. 13 , 2 S. W. 870, 873 . 1930The case relied on by appellants, to support their contention that the due execution of the will was not shown because there was no evidence that the will was read by or to the testator or that he knew its contents at the time of its execution, is the case of Kelly v. Settegast, 68 Tex. 13 , 2 S. W. 870, 873 . | 1 | 1930–1930 |
| Burdett v. Marshall neutral | 1 | 1884–1884 |
| Cartwright v. Chabert green | 1 | 1884–1884 |
| Austin v. Jordan green | 1 | 1884–1884 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.