Holliday v. Ward

Citation19 Pa. 485
PartiesHolliday versus Ward.
Decision Date01 January 1858
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

The opinion of the Court was delivered by BLACK, C. J.

The title of the defendants below to the land in dispute, or a part of it, depended on a will which had been proved before the register. No evidence was offered on the other side to show that the will was not properly executed, or that the testator was incapable of making one. But the Court charged that, inasmuch as one of the witnesses who had been sworn before the register was a devisee, and therefore interested, the will was destitute of the necessary evidence of authenticity, and not sufficient to pass title. A written renunciation of his rights under the will made by the witness before probate was offered by the other party, but was rejected.

A register is a judge, and the admission of a will to probate is a judicial decision. His judgment, if it be in favor of the will, is evidence of its validity in all respects whatever, conclusive as to personal property, and presumptive as to real. Such judgment can only be set aside on appeal, and is unimpeachable in any other proceeding. The validity of the will is a fact which the law infers from the decision itself, of the register, and not from the evidence on which that decision was based. A judge before whom the will comes collaterally, proved and approved by the proper authority, has no right to reject it because it may seem to him that the probate was allowed on the testimony of an incompetent witness, or on proof that was insufficient. Its validity, so far as it affects realty, may be contradicted and disproved in ejectment or partition, by showing that it was not legally executed, or that the testator at the time of making it was insane, under duress, or influenced by the fraudulent practice of some interested party. But though the presumption which arises out of the record may be thus repelled, it does not follow that the record itself can be treated as a nullity. Where the will has been approved by the register, in pursuance of a decision in its favour, or an issue sent to the Common Pleas, it is still no more than primâ facie evidence of its validity in a subsequent ejectment for land devised by it: but certainly no Court would look into the evidence given on the trial of the issue, and reject the will altogether, if it appeared that an interested witness had been examined. In such a case the evidence cannot accompany the record of the judgment; neither can it when the proof is heard before the Register's Court, and it need not when it is taken before the register himself. His attestation may be a simple certificate that the will was proved and approved. Whether the certificate sets out no evidence at all, or evidence insufficient, the will must be received if the register has not condemned it. It is not usual to enter a formal decree of probate on the record; but the want of it is not fatal. It will be presumed from the issuing of letters testamentary, or perhaps from any other act of the register which he would have no legal right to do in a case where proof of the will had failed. The existence of such a decree does not appear to have been questioned in this case.

I have not cited cases for each principle here asserted. But I might have done so; for they are very abundant. Our own decisions on the subject may be found (by those who think that reason is not strong enough without authority) in 3 Binn. 498; 4 Ser. & R. 193; 6 Ser. & R. 223; 5 R. 80; 5 Barr 21; 6 Barr 435; 8 Barr 417; 9 Barr 234. Loy v. Kennedy (1 W. & Ser. 398) bears a strong resemblance to this case in very many of its features.

On the whole we are of opinion that the will was properly admitted in evidence, and being so admitted, it ought to have been treated as a valid testamentary writing. The burden was on the defendant to show illegal execution, insanity, duress, or fraud, and in the absence of such proof the probate, whether defectively taken or not, was sufficient for all the purposes of the party...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • In re Watts' Estate
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 30 Octubre 1893
    ...Ap., 97 Pa. 289; Brooke's Ap., 102 Pa. 150; Odd Fellows Savings Bank's Ap., 123 Pa. 356; Second National Bank's Ap., 138 Pa. 285; Holliday v. Ward, 19 Pa. 485; Hughes's 57 Pa. 179; Axtell's Ap., 43 Leg. Int. 476; Yohe v. Barnet's Adm'r, 1 Bin. 358; Wimmer's Ap., 1 Whart. 95; Barklay's Est.,......
  • In re Miller's Estate
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 12 Febrero 1894
    ... ... conclusive upon all persons: Coates v. Hughes, 3 ... Binn. 498; Thompson v. Thompson, 9 Pa. 234; ... Rowland v. Evans, 6 Pa. 435; Holliday v ... Ward, 19 Pa. 485; Ottinger v. Ottinger, 17 S. & ... R. 142; Warfield v. Fox, 53 Pa. 382; Wilson v ... Gaston, 92 Pa. 207; McCort's ... ...
  • Packer v. Owens
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 1 Octubre 1894
    ...Pars. 155; Schouler on Exrs. and Admrs., 2d ed. § 160; Carpenter v. Cameron, 7 Watts, 51; Loy v. Kennedy, 1 W. & S. 396; Holliday v. Ward, 19 Pa. 485; Lovett v. Mathews, 24 Pa. 330; Shinn v. Holmes, 25 Pa. 142; Van Fleet on Collat. Attack, § 799; Comstock v. Crawford, 3 Wall. 396; Bain v. F......
  • Abrams v. White
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 28 Noviembre 1905
    ... ... (Miss.) 148; Taylor v. Tibbatts, 13 B. Mon ... (Ky.) 177; Wells' Will, 5 Litt. (Ky.) 273; Ray v ... Doughty, 4 Blackf. 115; Holliday v. Ward, 19 ... Pa. 485, 57 Am. Dec. 671.) "A transfer of property to a ... creditor will be held fraudulent and void, unless it is shown ... that ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT