attestation clause in Wisconsin

1925In the case of Adams v. Rodman, 102 Wis. 456 , 78 N. W. 588, 759 , it is said: “The fact that the attesting clause states that the witnesses signed the instrument in the presence of the testator raises a strong presumption that they did so sign, and such presumption .should prevail unless overcome by clear and satisfactory evidence.” Such is also substantially the holding in Gillmor’s Will, 117 Wis. 302 , 94 N. W. 32 ; Lewi's Will, 51 Wis. 101 , 7 N. W. 829 ; Will of Arneson, 128 Wis. 112 , 107 N. W. 21 ; Will of Grant, 149 Wis. 330 , 135 N. W. 833 ; Will of Griffith, 165 Wis. 601 , 163 N. W.

1925In the case of Adams v. Rodman, 102 Wis. 456 , 78 N. W. 588, 759 , it is said: “The fact that the attesting clause states that the witnesses signed the instrument in the presence of the testator raises a strong presumption that they did so sign, and such presumption .should prevail unless overcome by clear and satisfactory evidence.” Such is also substantially the holding in Gillmor’s Will, 117 Wis. 302 , 94 N. W. 32 ; Lewi's Will, 51 Wis. 101 , 7 N. W. 829 ; Will of Arneson, 128 Wis. 112 , 107 N. W. 21 ; Will of Grant, 149 Wis. 330 , 135 N. W. 833 ; Will of Griffith, 165 Wis. 601 , 163 N. W.

1957Will of Frederiksen, 246 Wis. 263, 271 , 16 N. W. (2d) 819 . *389 Having produced one witness whose testimony covered all essential points positively, and whom the trial court reasonably believed, proponent met his burden of proof.

1957Will of Frederiksen, 246 Wis. 263, 271 , 16 N. W. (2d) 819 . *389 Having produced one witness whose testimony covered all essential points positively, and whom the trial court reasonably believed, proponent met his burden of proof.

1953“In Will of Johnson, 225 Wis. 140 , above, the court said, “ ‘It has been declared by this court that in the absence of clear proof that the witnesses to a will signed it before the testator did, it will be presumed that the testator signed it first’ and cases cited therein. “ ‘Even in the absence of an attestation clause, appearance of regularity on the face of a will involves a presumption of due execution so strong as to prevail in the absence of clear and satisfactory evidence to overcome it.’ Will of Griffith, 165 Wis. 601 , 163 N. W. 138 . “ ‘The law is liberal in presuming the due execu

1953“In Will of Johnson, 225 Wis. 140 , above, the court said, “ ‘It has been declared by this court that in the absence of clear proof that the witnesses to a will signed it before the testator did, it will be presumed that the testator signed it first’ and cases cited therein. “ ‘Even in the absence of an attestation clause, appearance of regularity on the face of a will involves a presumption of due execution so strong as to prevail in the absence of clear and satisfactory evidence to overcome it.’ Will of Griffith, 165 Wis. 601 , 163 N. W. 138 . “ ‘The law is liberal in presuming the due execu

1944And that the court did not regard those matters to be established facts, but considered them merely matters as to which Anderson had given testimony that must be weighed with all the credible evidence and closely scrutinized, is evident from the following statements by the court in relation to Witnesses Andersons’ testimony, in its written decision, that,— “The foregoing testimony must be weighed with all the credible evidence in the case, and, in any event, closely scrutinized because it is given to impeach the execution of the will as of the date recited in the attestation clause;”— and in i

1944And that the court did not regard those matters to be established facts, but considered them merely matters as to which Anderson had given testimony that must be weighed with all the credible evidence and closely scrutinized, is evident from the following statements by the court in relation to Witnesses Andersons’ testimony, in its written decision, that,— “The foregoing testimony must be weighed with all the credible evidence in the case, and, in any event, closely scrutinized because it is given to impeach the execution of the will as of the date recited in the attestation clause;”— and in i

1944And that the court did not regard those matters to be established facts, but considered them merely matters as to which Anderson had given testimony that must be weighed with all the credible evidence and closely scrutinized, is evident from the following statements by the court in relation to Witnesses Andersons’ testimony, in its written decision, that,— “The foregoing testimony must be weighed with all the credible evidence in the case, and, in any event, closely scrutinized because it is given to impeach the execution of the will as of the date recited in the attestation clause;”— and in i

1944And that the court did not regard those matters to be established facts, but considered them merely matters as to which Anderson had given testimony that must be weighed with all the credible evidence and closely scrutinized, is evident from the following statements by the court in relation to Witnesses Andersons’ testimony, in its written decision, that,— “The foregoing testimony must be weighed with all the credible evidence in the case, and, in any event, closely scrutinized because it is given to impeach the execution of the will as of the date recited in the attestation clause;”— and in i

1931Will of Lewis, 51 Wis. 101 , 7 N. W. 829 .

1931Will of Lewis, 51 Wis. 101 , 7 N. W. 829 .

1961In Will of Szperka, 254 Wis. 153, 158 , 35 N. W. (2d) 209 , 35 N. W. (2d) 911 , this court commented on the attempted impeachment of a will by an attesting witness after signing an attestation clause, reciting that the testatrix was of sound mind, and stated that such testimony should be received with caution and suspicion.

1961In Will of Szperka, 254 Wis. 153, 158 , 35 N. W. (2d) 209 , 35 N. W. (2d) 911 , this court commented on the attempted impeachment of a will by an attesting witness after signing an attestation clause, reciting that the testatrix was of sound mind, and stated that such testimony should be received with caution and suspicion.

1953“In Will of Johnson, 225 Wis. 140 , above, the court said, “ ‘It has been declared by this court that in the absence of clear proof that the witnesses to a will signed it before the testator did, it will be presumed that the testator signed it first’ and cases cited therein. “ ‘Even in the absence of an attestation clause, appearance of regularity on the face of a will involves a presumption of due execution so strong as to prevail in the absence of clear and satisfactory evidence to overcome it.’ Will of Griffith, 165 Wis. 601 , 163 N. W. 138 . “ ‘The law is liberal in presuming the due execu

1944And that the court did not regard those matters to be established facts, but considered them merely matters as to which Anderson had given testimony that must be weighed with all the credible evidence and closely scrutinized, is evident from the following statements by the court in relation to Witnesses Andersons’ testimony, in its written decision, that,— “The foregoing testimony must be weighed with all the credible evidence in the case, and, in any event, closely scrutinized because it is given to impeach the execution of the will as of the date recited in the attestation clause;”— and in i

1944And that the court did not regard those matters to be established facts, but considered them merely matters as to which Anderson had given testimony that must be weighed with all the credible evidence and closely scrutinized, is evident from the following statements by the court in relation to Witnesses Andersons’ testimony, in its written decision, that,— “The foregoing testimony must be weighed with all the credible evidence in the case, and, in any event, closely scrutinized because it is given to impeach the execution of the will as of the date recited in the attestation clause;”— and in i

1944And that the court did not regard those matters to be established facts, but considered them merely matters as to which Anderson had given testimony that must be weighed with all the credible evidence and closely scrutinized, is evident from the following statements by the court in relation to Witnesses Andersons’ testimony, in its written decision, that,— “The foregoing testimony must be weighed with all the credible evidence in the case, and, in any event, closely scrutinized because it is given to impeach the execution of the will as of the date recited in the attestation clause;”— and in i

1944And that the court did not regard those matters to be established facts, but considered them merely matters as to which Anderson had given testimony that must be weighed with all the credible evidence and closely scrutinized, is evident from the following statements by the court in relation to Witnesses Andersons’ testimony, in its written decision, that,— “The foregoing testimony must be weighed with all the credible evidence in the case, and, in any event, closely scrutinized because it is given to impeach the execution of the will as of the date recited in the attestation clause;”— and in i

1944Dec. 593 ; In re Estate of Elkerton, 380 Ill. 394 , 44 N. E. (2d) 148; Szarat v. Schuerr, 365 Ill. 323 , 6 N. E. (2d) 625; In re Warren’s Estate, 138 Or. 283 , 4 Pac. (2d) 635 , 79 A. L.

1944Dec. 593 ; In re Estate of Elkerton, 380 Ill. 394 , 44 N. E. (2d) 148; Szarat v. Schuerr, 365 Ill. 323 , 6 N. E. (2d) 625; In re Warren’s Estate, 138 Or. 283 , 4 Pac. (2d) 635 , 79 A. L.

1944Dec. 593 ; In re Estate of Elkerton, 380 Ill. 394 , 44 N. E. (2d) 148; Szarat v. Schuerr, 365 Ill. 323 , 6 N. E. (2d) 625; In re Warren’s Estate, 138 Or. 283 , 4 Pac. (2d) 635 , 79 A. L.

1944Dec. 593 ; In re Estate of Elkerton, 380 Ill. 394 , 44 N. E. (2d) 148; Szarat v. Schuerr, 365 Ill. 323 , 6 N. E. (2d) 625; In re Warren’s Estate, 138 Or. 283 , 4 Pac. (2d) 635 , 79 A. L.

1925In the case of Adams v. Rodman, 102 Wis. 456 , 78 N. W. 588, 759 , it is said: “The fact that the attesting clause states that the witnesses signed the instrument in the presence of the testator raises a strong presumption that they did so sign, and such presumption .should prevail unless overcome by clear and satisfactory evidence.” Such is also substantially the holding in Gillmor’s Will, 117 Wis. 302 , 94 N. W. 32 ; Lewi's Will, 51 Wis. 101 , 7 N. W. 829 ; Will of Arneson, 128 Wis. 112 , 107 N. W. 21 ; Will of Grant, 149 Wis. 330 , 135 N. W. 833 ; Will of Griffith, 165 Wis. 601 , 163 N. W.

1925In the case of Adams v. Rodman, 102 Wis. 456 , 78 N. W. 588, 759 , it is said: “The fact that the attesting clause states that the witnesses signed the instrument in the presence of the testator raises a strong presumption that they did so sign, and such presumption .should prevail unless overcome by clear and satisfactory evidence.” Such is also substantially the holding in Gillmor’s Will, 117 Wis. 302 , 94 N. W. 32 ; Lewi's Will, 51 Wis. 101 , 7 N. W. 829 ; Will of Arneson, 128 Wis. 112 , 107 N. W. 21 ; Will of Grant, 149 Wis. 330 , 135 N. W. 833 ; Will of Griffith, 165 Wis. 601 , 163 N. W.

1925In the case of Adams v. Rodman, 102 Wis. 456 , 78 N. W. 588, 759 , it is said: “The fact that the attesting clause states that the witnesses signed the instrument in the presence of the testator raises a strong presumption that they did so sign, and such presumption .should prevail unless overcome by clear and satisfactory evidence.” Such is also substantially the holding in Gillmor’s Will, 117 Wis. 302 , 94 N. W. 32 ; Lewi's Will, 51 Wis. 101 , 7 N. W. 829 ; Will of Arneson, 128 Wis. 112 , 107 N. W. 21 ; Will of Grant, 149 Wis. 330 , 135 N. W. 833 ; Will of Griffith, 165 Wis. 601 , 163 N. W.

1925In the case of Adams v. Rodman, 102 Wis. 456 , 78 N. W. 588, 759 , it is said: “The fact that the attesting clause states that the witnesses signed the instrument in the presence of the testator raises a strong presumption that they did so sign, and such presumption .should prevail unless overcome by clear and satisfactory evidence.” Such is also substantially the holding in Gillmor’s Will, 117 Wis. 302 , 94 N. W. 32 ; Lewi's Will, 51 Wis. 101 , 7 N. W. 829 ; Will of Arneson, 128 Wis. 112 , 107 N. W. 21 ; Will of Grant, 149 Wis. 330 , 135 N. W. 833 ; Will of Griffith, 165 Wis. 601 , 163 N. W.

1925In the case of Adams v. Rodman, 102 Wis. 456 , 78 N. W. 588, 759 , it is said: “The fact that the attesting clause states that the witnesses signed the instrument in the presence of the testator raises a strong presumption that they did so sign, and such presumption .should prevail unless overcome by clear and satisfactory evidence.” Such is also substantially the holding in Gillmor’s Will, 117 Wis. 302 , 94 N. W. 32 ; Lewi's Will, 51 Wis. 101 , 7 N. W. 829 ; Will of Arneson, 128 Wis. 112 , 107 N. W. 21 ; Will of Grant, 149 Wis. 330 , 135 N. W. 833 ; Will of Griffith, 165 Wis. 601 , 163 N. W.

1925In the case of Adams v. Rodman, 102 Wis. 456 , 78 N. W. 588, 759 , it is said: “The fact that the attesting clause states that the witnesses signed the instrument in the presence of the testator raises a strong presumption that they did so sign, and such presumption .should prevail unless overcome by clear and satisfactory evidence.” Such is also substantially the holding in Gillmor’s Will, 117 Wis. 302 , 94 N. W. 32 ; Lewi's Will, 51 Wis. 101 , 7 N. W. 829 ; Will of Arneson, 128 Wis. 112 , 107 N. W. 21 ; Will of Grant, 149 Wis. 330 , 135 N. W. 833 ; Will of Griffith, 165 Wis. 601 , 163 N. W.

1893In Dreutzer v. Smith, 56 Wis. 292 , the attestation clause of the tax deed contained the statement, “ and have hereunto affixed the seal of said county board of supervisors,” etc. When the deed was executed the statute required it to be sealed with the seal of the county.

1893In Bulger v. Moore, 67 Wis. 430, the clerk stated in the attestation clause that he had affixed the “ seal of the county board of ■supervisors,” when it should have been the “ seal of the county,” and signed his name officially to the deed as “ clerk of the board of supervisors,” when it should have been “county clerk.” The deed was held valid.