formal attestation clause in Illinois

1945(Barber v. Barber, 368 Ill. 215 ; Cunningham v. Hallyburton, 342 Ill. 442 ; Calkins v. Calkins, 216 Ill. 458 ; Robinson v. Brewster, 140 Ill. 649 .) In Brelie v. Wilkie, 373 Ill. 409 , and in Mead v. Presbyterian Church, 229 Ill. 526 , there was held to be a presumption' of proper execution even though there was no attestation clause, the attestation being merely by subscription, together with the word “witnesses.” While two of the attesting witnesses to a will or codicil must, except in certain instances enumerated by the statute, (Ill.

1930Neither a formal attestation clause nor even words in addition to the signatures of the witnesses are necessary (Calkins v. Calkins, 216 Ill. 458 ), and if the instrument bears no date, the time of its execution may be shown by extrinsic evidence. 1 Redfield on Wills, (4th ed.) *p. 508; 1 Page on Wills, (2d ed.) sec. 236.

2014An instrument in writing, irrespective of its informality, made with the expressed intent of giving a posthumous disposition to a person's property is testamentary in character, and, if duly executed, is entitled to admission to probate. [Citations.] Neither a formal attestation clause nor even words in addition to the signatures of the witnesses are prerequisites to a valid execution of a will. [Citations.] A clearly expressed wish of the testator in his will is equivalent to a positive direction or command. [Citation.]” (Emphases added.) Barber, 368 Ill. at 220-21 .

2014An instrument in writing, irrespective of its informality, made with the expressed intent of giving a posthumous disposition to a person’s property is testamentary in character, and, if duly executed, is entitled to admission to probate. [Citations.] Neither a formal attestation clause nor even words in addition to the signatures of the witnesses are prerequisites to a valid execution of a will. [Citations.] A clearly expressed wish of the testator in his will is equivalent to a positive direction or command. [Citation.]” (Emphases added.) Barber, 368 Ill. at 220-21 .

1942(O’Brien v. Estate of Rhembe, 269 Ill. 592 .) The proof was ample in this case to make a prima facie case of the due execution of the will.” Thus we have a will on the face of which no defect appears and on which the signatures of the testatrix and subscribing witnesses are genuine.

1917In O’Brien v. Estate of Rhembe, 269 Ill. 592 , we held that where a will contains a full and formal attestation clause and the signature to the will is shown to be in the handwriting of the testatrix, and the subscribing witnesses went at the request of the testatrix to witness her will and signed as witnesses a paper they understood was the will, the fact that they did not remember seeing the testatrix sign the will or that she acknowledged it to be her act and deed does not preclude the probate of the will.

1945(Barber v. Barber, 368 Ill. 215 ; Cunningham v. Hallyburton, 342 Ill. 442 ; Calkins v. Calkins, 216 Ill. 458 ; Robinson v. Brewster, 140 Ill. 649 .) In Brelie v. Wilkie, 373 Ill. 409 , and in Mead v. Presbyterian Church, 229 Ill. 526 , there was held to be a presumption' of proper execution even though there was no attestation clause, the attestation being merely by subscription, together with the word “witnesses.” While two of the attesting witnesses to a will or codicil must, except in certain instances enumerated by the statute, (Ill.

1908(Mead v. Presbyterian Church, 229 Ill. 526 ; Calkins v. Calkins, supra; More v. More, 211 Ill. 268 .) It was held by this court in Crowley v. Crowley, 80 Ill. 469 , where the two witnesses to the will could not identify the document as the one they had signed and could not state that the testator was of sound mind and memory at the time the writing was executed, that the evidence of the person who wrote the will that the testator was of sound mind and that he executed it in the presence of the two witnesses, uncorroborated, was not sufficient to admit the will to probate.

1908(Mead v. Presbyterian Church, 229 Ill. 526 ; Calkins v. Calkins, supra; More v. More, 211 Ill. 268 .) It was held by this court in Crowley v. Crowley, 80 Ill. 469 , where the two witnesses to the will could not identify the document as the one they had signed and could not state that the testator was of sound mind and memory at the time the writing was executed, that the evidence of the person who wrote the will that the testator was of sound mind and that he executed it in the presence of the two witnesses, uncorroborated, was not sufficient to admit the will to probate.

1907More v. More, 211 Ill. 268 ; Calkins v. Calkins, 216 id. 458.

1945(Barber v. Barber, 368 Ill. 215 ; Cunningham v. Hallyburton, 342 Ill. 442 ; Calkins v. Calkins, 216 Ill. 458 ; Robinson v. Brewster, 140 Ill. 649 .) In Brelie v. Wilkie, 373 Ill. 409 , and in Mead v. Presbyterian Church, 229 Ill. 526 , there was held to be a presumption' of proper execution even though there was no attestation clause, the attestation being merely by subscription, together with the word “witnesses.” While two of the attesting witnesses to a will or codicil must, except in certain instances enumerated by the statute, (Ill.

1945(Barber v. Barber, 368 Ill. 215 ; Cunningham v. Hallyburton, 342 Ill. 442 ; Calkins v. Calkins, 216 Ill. 458 ; Robinson v. Brewster, 140 Ill. 649 .) In Brelie v. Wilkie, 373 Ill. 409 , and in Mead v. Presbyterian Church, 229 Ill. 526 , there was held to be a presumption' of proper execution even though there was no attestation clause, the attestation being merely by subscription, together with the word “witnesses.” While two of the attesting witnesses to a will or codicil must, except in certain instances enumerated by the statute, (Ill.

1945(Barber v. Barber, 368 Ill. 215 ; Cunningham v. Hallyburton, 342 Ill. 442 ; Calkins v. Calkins, 216 Ill. 458 ; Robinson v. Brewster, 140 Ill. 649 .) In Brelie v. Wilkie, 373 Ill. 409 , and in Mead v. Presbyterian Church, 229 Ill. 526 , there was held to be a presumption' of proper execution even though there was no attestation clause, the attestation being merely by subscription, together with the word “witnesses.” While two of the attesting witnesses to a will or codicil must, except in certain instances enumerated by the statute, (Ill.

1942It is not unusual for attesting witnesses, when called to testify as to the execution of a will, not to be able to remember all that occurred at the time of the execution or as to what they saw of the will or of the signature of the testator or testatrix thereto. •It was held in the case of Rupp v. Jones, supra, “Where a will contains a full and formal attestation clause, the signature to the will is shown to be in the handwriting of the testator and the will is fully identified as the instrument attested by the witnesses, the fact that they do not remember seeing the testator sign the will or

1923“It is not necessary, however, that a formal attestation clause reciting all the facts necessary to a correct execution of the will be added to the instrument to make it a valid will.” (Schofield v. Thomas, 236 Ill. 417 ; Mead v. Presbyterian Church, 229 id. 526 .) “It has been repeatedly held by this court that on the hearing in the circuit court on the question of the due execution of the instrument involved, the question of fact presented is determined by the same rules and presumptions which control the trial of other questions of fact, and that the instrument should be admitted to record

1923“It is not necessary, however, that a formal attestation clause reciting all the facts necessary to a correct execution of the will be added to the instrument to make it a valid will.” (Schofield v. Thomas, 236 Ill. 417 ; Mead v. Presbyterian Church, 229 id. 526 .) “It has been repeatedly held by this court that on the hearing in the circuit court on the question of the due execution of the instrument involved, the question of fact presented is determined by the same rules and presumptions which control the trial of other questions of fact, and that the instrument should be admitted to record

1923“It is not necessary, however, that a formal attestation clause reciting all the facts necessary to a correct execution of the will be added to the instrument to make it a valid will.” (Schofield v. Thomas, 236 Ill. 417 ; Mead v. Presbyterian Church, 229 id. 526 .) “It has been repeatedly held by this court that on the hearing in the circuit court on the question of the due execution of the instrument involved, the question of fact presented is determined by the same rules and presumptions which control the trial of other questions of fact, and that the instrument should be admitted to record

1917To the same effect are Thompson v. Owen, 174 Ill. 229 , and Gould v. Chicago Theological Seminary, 189 id. 282 .

1917To the same effect are Thompson v. Owen, 174 Ill. 229 , and Gould v. Chicago Theological Seminary, 189 id. 282 .

1908(Mead v. Presbyterian Church, 229 Ill. 526 ; Calkins v. Calkins, supra; More v. More, 211 Ill. 268 .) It was held by this court in Crowley v. Crowley, 80 Ill. 469 , where the two witnesses to the will could not identify the document as the one they had signed and could not state that the testator was of sound mind and memory at the time the writing was executed, that the evidence of the person who wrote the will that the testator was of sound mind and that he executed it in the presence of the two witnesses, uncorroborated, was not sufficient to admit the will to probate.