Scampmorte v. Scampmorte, 19265
Decision Date | 20 February 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 19265,No. 2,19265,2 |
Citation | 133 Ind.App. 276,180 N.E.2d 385 |
Parties | Frank SCAMPMORTE, Appellant, v. Joseph SCAMPMORTE, Administrator of the Estate of Frank Scampmorte, Deceased, Joseph Scampmorte et al., Appellees |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Joan C. Bashaw, Robert L. Shearer, Anderson, for appellant.
Johnson & Austin, Kelley, Arnold & Kelley, Anderson, Vincent Kelley, Robert L. Austin, Conrad S. Arnkens, Jack Staggenburg, Anderson, for appellees.
Appellant filed no brief in support of his Petition for Rehearing, nor have appellees filed any objection or brief to said petition for rehearing.
Appellant charges error by the court in its opinion and decision:
It appears that appellant has taken words out of context. In Hayes et al. v. West et al. (1871), 37 Ind. 21, the court said:
(Our emphasis).
It certainly is elementary that 'only the testimony of one (1) subscribing witness is necessary to establish a will when offered for probate,' provided, that said subscribing witness can satisfy the probate court by knowledge that two (2) competent subscribing witnesses 'subscribed the will, as such, in the presence of the testator and at his request.' (Our emphasis). Hayes v. West, supra, page 26.
The record does not disclose nor does the opinion hold that Garnet Stottlemyer testified that two (2) witnesses subscribed to the will of the testator at his request. (Our emphasis).
The second error of the court as claimed by the appellant in his Petition for Rehearing is in holding that:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Estate of Voelker
...absence of execution in the form prescribed by law there is no will. Scampmorte v. Scampmorte, (1962) 133 Ind.App. 276, 179 N.E.2d 302, 180 N.E.2d 385. Tucker's position in justification of discovery relies almost exclusively upon a line of cases, represented by Kern v. Kern, (1900) 154 Ind......