Johnson v. Hinton
| Decision Date | 01 October 1917 |
| Docket Number | 133 |
| Citation | 197 S.W. 706,130 Ark. 394 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. HINTON, ADMINISTRATOR |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Arkansas Circuit Court; Thomas C. Trimble, Judge affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Carpenter & Bowers and W. N. Carpenter, for appellants.
The will was sufficiently proven to admit it to probate. The intention of the testator was clearly proven. 13 Ark. 475 483. A will may be proven by testimony other than that of the attesting witnesses. Ib. 473, 31 Id. 588. The law was substantially complied with and the will should be probated.
Richmond Franklin died in Arkansas County in this State owning property. J. W. Hinton was appointed administrator of his estate. J. H. Johnson and Eliza Edwards filed a petition in the probate court for the probate of a written instrument which they alleged to be the last will and testament of Richard Franklin, deceased. J. W. Hinton, as administrator, contested the probate of the will. The probate court refused to admit the instrument to probate as the last will and testament of Richard Franklin, deceased, and an appeal was taken to the circuit court. The circuit court sustained the judgment of the probate court in refusing the will to be probated and directed that a copy of its judgment be certified to the probate court. The case is here on appeal. The facts are as follows:
Dr. S. F. Baker was one of the attending physicians of Richmond Franklin during his last illness. Richmond Franklin asked Dr. Baker if he would get well, and he said that the reason he wanted to know was that he had a little property and wanted to dispose of it before he died. Dr. Baker replied that he could dispose of his property by will. Franklin asked Dr. Baker to write his will for him and told him that he wished to give his property to Jas. H. Johnson and Eliza Edwards. Dr. Baker wrote out the will for him. Franklin signed it and Dr. Baker signed it as an attesting witness. He told Franklin that the law required that there should be two attesting witnesses. Franklin died without having procured another attesting witness. It was also shown in evidence that Richmond Franklin had frequently stated to different persons that he wanted J. H. Johnson and Eliza Edwards to have his property after he died. The probate of the will in common form was refused solely on the ground that there was but one attesting witness to it.
Under our statutes property may be disposed of by will, but at least two attesting witnesses are required. Kirby's Digest, §§ 8010 and 8012.
There was only one attesting witness to the will and the court was right in refusing to allow it to be admitted to probate because the statute had not been complied with in regard to its attestation. Rogers v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sneed v. Reynolds
...evidence of any witnesses to the effect that they saw the decedent write the will, is the law, and should have been given. 80 Ark. 204; 130 Ark. 394; Ark. 495; 45 Ark. 524; 1 Ark. 201; 20 Ark. 410. The evidence of Mrs. Cohen was incompetent. 60 Ark. 301. Martin, Wootton & Martin, for appell......
-
Holloway v. Parker
... ... We cannot think of a stronger circumstance tending ... to establish the genuineness of a will under such ... circumstances. The case of Johnson v ... Hinton, 130 Ark. 394, 197 S.W. 706, cited by ... appellants in support of their contention on this ... [122 S.W.2d 567] ... point, is ... ...
-
Holloway v. Parker, 4-5287.
...think of a stronger circumstance tending to establish the genuineness of a will under such circumstances. The case of Johnson v. Hinton, 130 Ark. 394, 197 S.W. 706, cited by appellants in support of their contention on Page 567 point, is not applicable. In that case the issue was whether th......
-
Norton v. Hinson
...that there be at least two attesting witnesses. 2 See, e.g., Burns v. Adamson, 313 Ark. 281, 854 S.W.2d 723 (1993); Johnson v. Hinton, 130 Ark. 394, 197 S.W. 706 (1917). As with the number of attesting witnesses, the probate code clearly and unambiguously provides that the attesting witness......