In re Chambers' Estate
| Decision Date | 21 August 1936 |
| Docket Number | 26188. |
| Citation | 60 P.2d 41,187 Wash. 417 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | In re CHAMBERS' ESTATE. v. STEERE. CHAMBERS |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; John A. Frater, Judge.
Proceeding for the probate of the will of Andrew H. Chambers, deceased which was offered for probate by Edward P. Steere, wherein John W. Chambers was contestant. From an adverse decree, the contestant appeals.
Affirmed.
Lewis & Black, of Seattle, for appellant.
Ballard & Houghton, of Seattle, for respondent.
This is a will contest, the only question presented being that of whether or not the alleged will was executed as required by the statute. It is not contended that the testator was mentally incompetent to make a will, or that in signing the document offered as his will he was acting under undue influence.
During the month of February, 1936, Andrew H. Chambers, an aged man suffering from a mortal disease, was a patient in a hospital at Ellensburg. February 22d, three days prior to his death Mr. Chambers signed a document of a testamentary nature which was thereafter offered for probate as his last will and testament. John W. Chambers, a brother of the decedent, filed written objections to the probate of the alleged will, and a hearing was had, at the conclusion of which the court signed a decree establishing the document referred to as the last will and testament of Andrew H. Chambers, and appointing an administrator with the will annexed. From this decree, John W. Chambers has appealed, contending that the trial court erred in admitting the document to probate, for the reason that the same was not executed in accordance with the statutory requirements.
Appellant John W. Chambers is a brother of the deceased, and, if Andrew H. Chambers died intestate, is the sole heir at law. Edward P. Steere, the proponent of the will and a beneficiary thereunder, was related to the deceased by marriage. The signatures of appellant John W. Chambers and respondent Edward P. Steere both appear upon the will, which reads as follows:
While both appellant and respondent are named in the will as beneficiaries thereunder, they are not thereby disqualified from testifying as witnesses concerning its execution. Under Rem.Rev.Stat. § 1408, questions may arise as to what a witness who is also a beneficiary may receive under a will, but such a witness may undoubtedly testify in support of a document offered for probate.
Concerning the execution of a will, Rem.Rev.Stat. § 1395, reads as follows: 'Every will shall be in writing signed by the testator or testatrix, or by some other person under his or her direction in his or her presence, and shall be attested by two or more competent witnesses, subscribing their names to the will in the presence of the testator or testatrix by his or her direction or request.'
The will here in question contains no attestation clause whatsoever. The names of the persons who it is contended signed the document as witnesses thereto appear below the signature of the alleged testator, without any indication as to the purpose with which they signed or what particular significance they attached to the act of signing the document, either by themselves or by Andrew H. Chambers.
Our statute does not require that, in order to be valid, a will must be published by the testator; the sole formal requirements being contained in the portion of the statute above quoted. Under the statute, the attestation of a will is the act of the witnesses, not that of the testator, although, of course, the act of the witnesses must be based upon the acts of the testator in executing the will and requesting that the witnesses sign as such.
It will be noted that appellant, one of the witnesses, is strongly opposed to the probate of the document as a will, and that respondent Edward P. Steere is also a witness and interested in maintaining the decree establishing the document as the will of Andrew H. Chambers.
Appellant, called as a witness by respondent, testified that on the morning of February 22, 1936, he went to the hospital at Ellensburg to see his brother, who was on his death bed. The witness testified that he did not see the signature of his brother, Andrew H. Chambers, on the paper, and that at the time the witness signed, the paper did not bear his brother's signature; that respondent Steere requested the witness to sign the paper, and that he complied with that request; that nothing was said in the presence of the witness indicating that the document in question was a will. Appellant's testimony, then, does not support the admission of the document to probate.
Martha Cousins, a nurse in the hospital, signed the document, and as she was apparently an entirely disinterested witness, her testimony is of importance. Miss Cousins testified that on the morning in question, Mr. Steere, while in the corridor outside Mr. Chambers' room, asked her to go into the room and sign a paper as a witness; that she took a cardboard chart into the room to use as a support for the paper which was to be signed; that the document, which had already been prepared, was placed upon the board; that Andrew H. Chambers signed it; and that the witness then attached her signature. She stated that Mr. Chambers remarked that his signature would not be very good, because his hand was a little shaky. She testified that at the time Mr. Chambers' mind was quite clear, and that apparently he knew what he was doing and what the witness was doing. She further stated that after she had signed her name to the document, she asked if that was all, and that Mr. Andrew Chambers answered 'Yes.' She stated that very soon after this she left the room; that she did not see either appellant or respondent sign the document; and that respondent was the only person who suggested that she witness the paper; that she did not read the same and had no knowledge as to its nature; and that during the period she was in the room, nothing was said which indicated that the document was a will.
Respondent Edward P. Steere testified to his intimate association with Mr. Andrew Chambers for many years; that he visited him in the hospital at Ellensburg, and wrote the will at Mr. Chambers' dictation; that on the morning of February 22d, he was present when Andrew Chambers signed the document in the presence of Miss Cousins, appellant and the witness; that prior to this time, he had requested Miss Cousins to procure some ink and step into the room to witness Mr. Andrew Chambers' signature to his will, with which request Miss Cousins complied, as she stated; that after Andrew Chambers signed the will, the witness said: and that Miss Cousins then wrote her name on the paper, followed by J. W. Chambers and the witness; that the witness then took possession of the document, and in due time offered the same for probate.
On cross-examination, the witness testified that, at the time the document was signed and witnessed, nothing was said concerning the nature of the document, and that Mr. Chambers did not request any of the persons present to act as witnesses.
This being the situation presented by the evidence, can it be held that the trial court was justified in establishing the document as the will of Andrew H. Chambers, deceased?
The statute above quoted provides that a will must be 'attested by two or more competent witnesses, subscribing their names to the will in the presence of the testator or testatrix by his or her direction or request.' The document now Before us contains no attestation clause whatsoever, but, if competent witnesses present Before the court testify that they subscribed their names to a document in the presence of the testator, and to facts which amount in law to an attestation, under the law of this jurisdiction it is not essential that formal words of attestation be attached to the will. Appellant cites the opinion of this court In re Chafey's Estate, 167 Wash. 185, 8 P.2d 959, as laying down a contrary rule, but the opinion does not support the construction which appellant places thereon. It appeared that a document of a testamentary nature was offered for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
French's Estate, In re
...presumption is the proof of genuineness of the signatures, for the instrument is then on its face a valid will.' In Re Chambers' Estate, 187 Wash. 417, 60 P.2d 41, at page 43, it is said: 'The document now before us contains no attestation clause whatsoever, but, if competent witnesses pres......
-
In re Estate of Black
...the document in the presence of the testator and testify to facts showing attestation as a matter of law. In re Estate of Chambers, 187 Wash. 417, 427-28, 60 P.2d 41 (1936); In re Estate of Lindsay, 91 Wash.App. 944, 949, 957 P.2d 818 (1998). The definition of witness as used in RCW 11.12.0......
-
Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. Powers, 26353.
... ... contingent sort, like dower or survivorship, but a ... present estate. True, by our statute, the husband is made ... manager with full power to sell and dispose of this. But ... it does not follow ... Ass'n, 131 Wash. 174, 229 P. 313; Bartlett v ... [192 Wash. 486] Bartlett, 183 ... Wash. 278, 48 P.2d 560; In re Chambers' Estate, ... 187 Wash. 417, 60 P.2d 41 ... A case ... quoted in full and much relied upon by appellants, ... ...
-
Estate of Lindsay, Matter of
...for execution of a will are minimal. In re Estate of Price, 73 Wash.App. 745, 751, 871 P.2d 1079 (1994) (citing In re Estate of Chambers, 187 Wash. 417, 425, 60 P.2d 41 (1936)). The will must be in writing, signed by the testator, and "shall be attested by two or more competent witnesses, b......
-
Table of Cases
...Catto, In re Estate of, 88 Wn.App. 522, 944 P.2d 1052 (1997), review denied, 134 Wn.2d 1017 (1998): 4.5(1)(c) Chambers' Estate, In re, 187 Wash. 417, 60 P.2d 41 (1936): 3.3(2)(b), 13.3(2)(a) Chapin's Estate, In re, 17 Wn.2d 196, 135 P.2d 445 (1943): 3.3(5)(a) Chapin's Estate, In re, 19 Wn.2......
-
Chapter A. Formalities
...P.2d 804 (1998) (citing 2 William H. Bowe & Douglas H. Parker, Page on the Law of Wills §19.4, at 66 (I960)). 2 In re Chambers' Estate, 187 Wash. 417, 425, 60 P.2d 41 (1936); In re Estate of Lindsay, 91 Wn.App. 944, 948, 957 P.2d 818 (1998), review denied, 137 Wn.2d 1004 (1999). 3 RCW 11.12......
-
§13.3 Will Contests
...signed the document and for the purpose of attesting. In re Jones' Estate, 101 Wash. 128, 132, 172 P. 206 (1918); In re Chambers' Estate, 187 Wash. 417, 424, 60 P.2d 41 (1936); Mark Reutlinger, Washington Law of Wills and Intestate Succession Ch. 2, §A.3.a(1) (Wash. State Bar Assoc. 3d ed. ......
-
Table of Cases
...120 Wash. 487, 207 P. 657 (1922): 301, 304 Chafey's Estate, In re, 167 Wash. 185, 8 P.2d 959 (1932): 35, 45 Chambers' Estate, In re, 187 Wash. 417, 60 P.2d 41 (1936): 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 45, 47 Chapin's Estate, In re, 17 Wn.2d 196, 135 P.2d 445 (1943): 66, 70, 71, 74 Chapin's Estate, In......