has adopted rule in Maryland

1983Brown v. Ward, 53 Md. 376, 387 .

1948Brown v. Ward, 53 Md. 376, 387 , 36 Am.

1950Rep. 123 ; Home for Aged of Methodist Episcopal Church v. Bantz, 106 Md. 147 , 66 A. 701 ; Home for Aged of the M.

1924Section 324 of aidiole 93 of the Code provides how a will, or any clause thereof, may be revoked by a testator by “burning, cancelling, tearing or obliterating the 3ame,” and this Court has adopted the rule stated in 1 Bedfi&ld on Wills (3rd *351 ed.), star paging 307, see. 8: “The rule of evidence in the ecclesiastical courts, in regard to presumptive revocations, from the absence or mutilation of the will, seems to he, that if the will is traced into the testator’s possession and custody, and is there found mutilated, in any of the modes pointed out in the statute for revocation, or is not f

1950Section 337, Article 93 of the Code provides that a will may be revoked “by burning, cancelling, tearing or obliterating the same, by the testator himself or in his presence, and by his direction and consent.” Referring to this clause, it was said in Measley v. Houseman, 144 Md. 339, 350 , 124 A. 906, 910 , “this court has adopted the rule stated in 1 Redfield on Wills (3d Ed.), star *306 paging 307, § 8: ‘The rule of evidence in the ecclesiastical courts, in regard to presumptive revocations, from the absence or mutilation of the will, seems to be, that if the will is traced into the testator

1924Section 324 of aidiole 93 of the Code provides how a will, or any clause thereof, may be revoked by a testator by “burning, cancelling, tearing or obliterating the 3ame,” and this Court has adopted the rule stated in 1 Bedfi&ld on Wills (3rd *351 ed.), star paging 307, see. 8: “The rule of evidence in the ecclesiastical courts, in regard to presumptive revocations, from the absence or mutilation of the will, seems to he, that if the will is traced into the testator’s possession and custody, and is there found mutilated, in any of the modes pointed out in the statute for revocation, or is not f

1999While there are numerous out-of-state cases in which the Court has adopted the rule set forth in § 496 E, the case most closely on point is VanCollom v. Johnson, 228 Va. 103 , 319 S.E.2d 745 (Va.1984).

1999While there are numerous out-of-state cases in which the Court has adopted the rule set forth in § 496 E, the case most closely on point is VanCollom v. Johnson, 228 Va. 103 , 319 S.E.2d 745 (Va.1984).

1995This Court has adopted the standard of admissibility for scientific evidence expert testimony announced in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923).

1950Section 337, Article 93 of the Code provides that a will may be revoked “by burning, cancelling, tearing or obliterating the same, by the testator himself or in his presence, and by his direction and consent.” Referring to this clause, it was said in Measley v. Houseman, 144 Md. 339, 350 , 124 A. 906, 910 , “this court has adopted the rule stated in 1 Redfield on Wills (3d Ed.), star *306 paging 307, § 8: ‘The rule of evidence in the ecclesiastical courts, in regard to presumptive revocations, from the absence or mutilation of the will, seems to be, that if the will is traced into the testator

1950Section 337, Article 93 of the Code provides that a will may be revoked “by burning, cancelling, tearing or obliterating the same, by the testator himself or in his presence, and by his direction and consent.” Referring to this clause, it was said in Measley v. Houseman, 144 Md. 339, 350 , 124 A. 906, 910 , “this court has adopted the rule stated in 1 Redfield on Wills (3d Ed.), star *306 paging 307, § 8: ‘The rule of evidence in the ecclesiastical courts, in regard to presumptive revocations, from the absence or mutilation of the will, seems to be, that if the will is traced into the testator

1943Schneider v. Hagerstown Brewing Co., 136 Md. 151 , 110 A. 218 .

1943Schneider v. Hagerstown Brewing Co., 136 Md. 151 , 110 A. 218 .

1924Section 324 of aidiole 93 of the Code provides how a will, or any clause thereof, may be revoked by a testator by “burning, cancelling, tearing or obliterating the 3ame,” and this Court has adopted the rule stated in 1 Bedfi&ld on Wills (3rd *351 ed.), star paging 307, see. 8: “The rule of evidence in the ecclesiastical courts, in regard to presumptive revocations, from the absence or mutilation of the will, seems to he, that if the will is traced into the testator’s possession and custody, and is there found mutilated, in any of the modes pointed out in the statute for revocation, or is not f

1924Section 324 of aidiole 93 of the Code provides how a will, or any clause thereof, may be revoked by a testator by “burning, cancelling, tearing or obliterating the 3ame,” and this Court has adopted the rule stated in 1 Bedfi&ld on Wills (3rd *351 ed.), star paging 307, see. 8: “The rule of evidence in the ecclesiastical courts, in regard to presumptive revocations, from the absence or mutilation of the will, seems to he, that if the will is traced into the testator’s possession and custody, and is there found mutilated, in any of the modes pointed out in the statute for revocation, or is not f

1918Steel Co. v. Equitable Society, 113 Md. 77 ; Bettendorf Axle Co. v. Field, 114 Md. 487 ; Joesting v. Baltimore, 97 Md. 594 ; Phinney v. Sheppard and Enoch Pratt Hospital, 88 Md. 639 ; Red River Valley Bank v. Craig, 181 U. S. 558 ; Lampasas v. Bell, 180 U. S. 283 . *273 The appellee does contend, however, that Section 184 is void because in conflict with Section 29 of Article 3 of the Maryland Constitution, requiring that every law shall embrace hut one subject and that shall bei described in its title.

1918Steel Co. v. Equitable Society, 113 Md. 77 ; Bettendorf Axle Co. v. Field, 114 Md. 487 ; Joesting v. Baltimore, 97 Md. 594 ; Phinney v. Sheppard and Enoch Pratt Hospital, 88 Md. 639 ; Red River Valley Bank v. Craig, 181 U. S. 558 ; Lampasas v. Bell, 180 U. S. 283 . *273 The appellee does contend, however, that Section 184 is void because in conflict with Section 29 of Article 3 of the Maryland Constitution, requiring that every law shall embrace hut one subject and that shall bei described in its title.

1918Steel Co. v. Equitable Society, 113 Md. 77 ; Bettendorf Axle Co. v. Field, 114 Md. 487 ; Joesting v. Baltimore, 97 Md. 594 ; Phinney v. Sheppard and Enoch Pratt Hospital, 88 Md. 639 ; Red River Valley Bank v. Craig, 181 U. S. 558 ; Lampasas v. Bell, 180 U. S. 283 . *273 The appellee does contend, however, that Section 184 is void because in conflict with Section 29 of Article 3 of the Maryland Constitution, requiring that every law shall embrace hut one subject and that shall bei described in its title.

1910Co., 134 Mass. 499 .