Beall v. Cunningham
Decision Date | 04 May 1843 |
Citation | 42 Ky. 390 |
Parties | W. & A. Beall v. Cunningham et al. |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Wills. Codicils.
ERROR TO THE WASHINGTON CIRCUIT.
Morehead & Reed and McHenry for appellants
Owsley & Goodloe and Shuck for appellees.
The facts appearing in the case.
AFTER the decision of this Court, reversing the order of the County Court of Washington, admitting to record, as the last will and testament of Richard Beall, deceased, a paper bearing date in 1825, and wholly written by himself, (1 Ben. Monroe, 399,) Cunningham and wife and others, claiming as devisees, exhibited to the County Court, for probate, a paper bearing date in 1827, with a codicil thereto attached bearing date in 1832, and moved the Court to admit the same to record, as a substantial copy of the last will and codicil of the decedent. The paper proposed to be recorded, after devising all his estate to his wife, for her life, who was then living but who has since died, directed all his estate to be sold, except a negro girl, which he bequeathed to his daughter, Mrs. Scheahan, and directed ten dollars to be paid to his son William, whom he says he had before advanced, and the residue to be divided into four equal parts, one part to go to Mrs. Scheahan, if living, if not, to her heirs; one part to his daughter, Mrs. Cunningham, if living, if not, to her heirs; one part to his daughter Susan Beauchamp, if living, if not, to her heirs; and one part to be equally divided betweed his son, Andrew Beall, his grand children, Elizabeth Wright's heirs, and his grand son, Lewis Abel, and appointed his wife and Robert Cunningham, executrix and executor of the will. The copy of the codicil attached, is in the following words:
The motion to record was opposed by Wm. Beall and Andrew Beall, who exhibited for record, a paper purporting to be the last will and testament of the decedent, bearing date in 1811, by which they were liberally provided for. On the hearing the County Court sustained and ordered to record, the aforesaid copies, as substantial copies of the last will and codicil of the decedent, and rejected the paper bearing date in 1811. From this order the case was taken to the Circuit Court, where the judgment of the County Court was affirmed, and an appeal taken from this affirmance to this Court.
We have examined the evidence in this record, and deeming it a useless consumption of time and labor to comment upon its details, would remark, that we are perfectly satisfied, from the proofs in the cause, that the decedent procured the original, of which the paper exhibited is a true copy, to be drafted in 1827, intending it for his will; that it was dictated by him, taken home from his daughter's at whose house it was drafted, and carefully preserved, and always, to the day of his death, treated as his will, by himself and by different members of his family, and contained precisely that disposition of his estate which he intended to make, and repeatedly declared he had made by his will. But at the time it was drafted he had his arm broken, and did not sign it or have it attested as his will, but took it home with him saying he intended to sign it and have it attested: but whether it was ever signed or attested, does not certainly appear. That in 1832 he procured a codicil to be written on the same paper, calling and treating the paper as his will, containing substantially the provisions of the copy exhibited; that this codicil was signed by him, and attested by two or three witnesses, and the paper, with the codicil, carefully replaced in the till of his chest, where he kept his valuable papers; that he died under the full conviction that the paper and codicil were secure in the place where he had put them, and there is not the slightest evidence that he ever intimated any dissatisfaction with the will, or with any one of the devises in it, or that he intended to alter or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Johnson
...give effect to a will which has never been signed has been specifically held in Kentucky, New Jersey, and England. See Beall v. Cunningham, 1843, 3 B.Mon. 390, 42 Ky. 390, in which it appeared that a paper wholly written by testator dated 1925 was denied probate, and thereafter there was of......
-
Brummett v. Brummett
...in that case the will was on one sheet of paper, and it was signed on the margin at the bottom. Defendants also cite the case of Beall v. Cunningham, 42 Ky. 390 (3 B. Monroe, Ky. 320 ). In that case the other papers were referred to. Finally in the case of Hurley v. Blankenship , 229 S.W.2d......
-
Pirtle v. Kirkpatrick
...and on the same page as the purported will, had the effect of giving operation to the whole as one will. Beall v. Cunningham, 42 Ky. 390, 3 B. Mon. 390, 39 Am. Dec. 469; Sharp v. Wallace, 83 Ky. 584; Farmers' Bank & Trust Co. v. Harding, 209 Ky. 3, 272 S.W. The remaining question is whether......
-
Pirtle v. Kirkpatrick
... ... the same page at the purported will, had the effect of giving ... operation to the whole as one will. Beall v ... Cunningham, 42 Ky. 390, 3 B.Mon. 390, 39 Am.Dec. 469; ... Sharp v. Wallace, 83 Ky. 584; Farmers' Bank ... & Trust Co. v. Harding, 209 Ky ... ...