A.Abatement—of legacies, p.96.Accumulation—how far allowed in common law, p.143.extraordinary case of, p.143.limits to, p.145.Acknowledgment—of signature to will, p.55.Ademption—of legacy, p.97.Age—of person making will, pp.68,69.manner of reckoning, p.69.extreme, not an incapacity, pp.86,87.Alienation—suspension of power in will, how limited, p.146.utmost period permitted, p.147.Alfred, King—will of, pp.32,33.Ambiguity—latent, definition of, p.188.latent, parol evidence admitted to explain, p.188.patent, what it is, p.188.Animals—singular regard for in wills, pp.77,78.regard of Louis Bonard for, p.82.Annuity in will—when to commence, p.117.Attestation—of will, p.64.forms of, p.67.B.Bacon, Lord—maxim of, in regard to parol evidence, p.129.Bastard—not classed in law as a child, p.124.Bequest—meaning of, p.93.Blind persons—their capacity to make will, p.70.Bonard, Louis—will of, p.82.singular life and belief of, pp.81-83.Bradford, Surrogate—his principles in admitting will of aged persons, p.88.Brinckerhoff, Dorothea—will of, p.62.Burial—directions for, in will, pp.10,16,21,77.Burning will—a mode of revocation, p.163.C.Cancelation of will—a mode of revocation, p.163.what shall amount to, p.169.Canute—will of, p.32.Capacity—to make will, as to age, pp.68,85.physical and mental, pp.69-71.Charitable uses—devises to, formerly allowed, pp.132,133.doctrine of, derived from civil law, p.133.doctrine of, existed in common law, pp.135,141.this denied in Levy v. Levy, p.139.law of, has varied in New York, p.135.researches of Prof. Dwight on, p.151.what are, p.133.“Chattels and effects”—what shall pass by in will, p.198.Child—does not include step-child, p.195.illegitimate, when a bequest to is good, p.124.inventre sa merecan take interest in will, p.121.Children—meaning of term in will, pp.121,122,195.imports legitimate only, p.195.Clergy—early connection of with wills, p.33.exclusive jurisdiction over wills, p.35.intervention in probate matters, p.34.their influence over the dying, pp.36,131.Codicil—how far will control provision in will, p.161.when it will cancel a will, p.162.how several are to be construed, p.160.Concanen, Edward—will of, p.111.Conditions—in will, how far legal, p.107.illegal, p.113.precedent and subsequent, what are, pp.103,104.Construction—of will, purpose of, pp.185,191.Constantinople—bequest to poor of, p.86.Corporations—prohibited from taking by devise, p.132.what are allowed to take by devise in New York, p.142.Coverture—formerly incapacitated woman making will, p.90.not now generally an incapacity, p.91.Cromwell—singular bequest to, p.18.Cruger, Harriet Douglas—will of, p.84.her history and singular delusion, p.85.Curtesy—married woman cannot defeat right in will in some States, p.92.married women may defeat in New York, p.92.Cutting—a will equivalent to tearing, p.164.D.Deaf and dumb—their capacity to make will, pp.69,70.Declarations—of testator, not admitted to show intention in a will, p.190.Delusion—what it is, pp.72,75.of Harriet Douglas Cruger, p.85.Denbigh, Earl of—singular bequest to, p.17.Devise—meaning of term, distinguished from legacy, p.93.Domicile—how determined, p.175.law of relating to wills part of leges gentium, p.173.law of governs in interpretation of wills, p.175.law of at time of decease governs, p.176.Drunken men—when incapable of making will, p.71.E.Eccentricity—difference between and monomania, p.76.remarkable case of, p.76.Ecclesiastical—jurisdiction over wills, rise of, p.35.courts’ decisions binding in law of wills, p.40.“Effects”—meaning of in will, pp.187,198.meaning of in will of Kosciusko, p.179.Emptor familiæ—position of in Roman law, p.31.Erasures—and interlineations in a will, effect of, p.169.Executor—appointment of in will, p.52.allowed a year to settle estate, p.114.duty of in paying legacy to child, p.118.not disqualified to receive legacy, p.120.responsibility of in paying legacies, p.114.when to pay legacy, pp.114,115.F.“Family”—construction of term in will, pp.192,197.explanation of term by Roper, p.197.Female—able to make will earlier than male in some States, p.69.Females—their fondness for animals, p.77.Fraud—preventing revocation of a will, pp.166,168.Funeral expenses—provided for in will, pp.11,14.directions for payment not necessary, p.51.G.Geigley, William—will of, p.108.Grandchildren, construction of term in will, p.193.Greenwood, singular delusion of, p.73.H.Harcourt, Mr. Granville—will of, p.13.Hæres—of Roman law, description of, p.30.Henry VIII—will of, providing for dean and canons of Windsor, p.24.Hindoos—no will among, p.31.Holographic will, p.50.singular example of in California, p.50.Hunt, Benjamin F.—will of, illustrating law of domicile, p.176.I.Insanity—definition of, p.72.partial not recognized in early law, p.73.partial, how far invalidates a will, p.74.Interest—on legacies, when to commence, p.116.on specific legacies, p.117.on legacy before payment causes legacy to vest, p.100.In terrorem—doctrine of, pp.111,112.In extremis—persons in allowed to make nuncupative wills, p.43.persons in frequently unduly influenced, p.135.Intention—governs in the construction of a will, pp.95,101,185.most considered in revocation of will, p.168.governs so far as consistent with rules of law, p.185.how ascertained, p.185.to operate as far as possible, if not wholly, p.193.“Issue”—meaning of term in a will, p.196.“Issue, dying without”—former construction of, p.196.meaning now by statute, p.197.J.Jefferson—farm of, at Monticello, devised by Commodore Levy, p.106.given charge of fund belonging to Kosciusko, p.179.Justinian—law of as to portion reserved for children, p.32.limited bishop’s interference in probate matters, p.34.limited military testament to those actually on an expedition, p.48.K.Kensett, William—singular disposition of his body, p.77.Kerr, Catharine—will of, p.58.Kidd, Captain—treasures of, superstition regarding, p.79.Kosciusko—will of before United States Supreme Court, p.178.interesting facts regarding his career, p.179L.Latent ambiguity—what is, p.188.Legacy—abatement of, p.96.ademption of, when takes place, p.97.contingent, definition of, p.97.conditional, and variety, pp.103-105.conditional, what conditions are valid, p.103.conditional, in restraint of marriage, p.107.general, examples of, pp.93-95.general, importance of distinction, p.96.in lieu of dower draws interest from death of testator, p.117.interest on, when to begin, pp.116,117.payable out of real estate, pp.100,102.payment of, pp.114,115.payment of, to whom, p.118.pecuniary sometimes held specific, p.95.specific, definition of, p.93.specific, various examples of, p.94.to infants, to whom paid, p.118.to a class, who shall take, p.122.vested, when becomes, pp.99,100.Legatee—how ascertained in some cases, p.125.error in description of, how remedied, p.126.who may be, p.119.Levy, Commodore—remarkable will of, p.136.Lex domicilii—governs will of personal property, p.174.Lex rei sitæ—governs will of real property, p.182.M.Marriage—revokes will previously made by a woman, p.157.of children, attempt to control, p.113.restraint of, how far legal, p.111.of poor maids, provisions of Henry Raine for, pp.133,134.Married women—capacity to take legacy or devise, p.119.legacy to, formerly paid to husband, p.119.power of to make will of personal property, p.91.law of American States is giving more enlarged privileges to, p.91.power of, by will in New York, p.92.Masses—legacy to say, pp.21,25.May, Thomas—singular bequest to, p.17.“Money”—strict meaning of, in a will, p.192.may include stock in funds, p.192.held to include real and personal property, p.192.Monticello—devised by Commodore Levy, p.136.Monomania—what it is, recognition of in law, p.73.when will avoid will, p.75.rise of theory in Dew v. Clark, p.74.different from eccentricity, p.76.N.Nephews and nieces—who are meant by, p.192.Non compos mentis—incapacity of to make will, p.71.who are, p.72.Nuncupative will—its nature, p.42.limitations of in Statute of Frauds, p.43.generally limited to soldiers, sailors, and persons in extremis, p.43.decision on in Cole v. Mordaunt, p.44.cases on numerous, since civil war, p.49.opinion of Kent in relation to, p.45.was in general use before Statute of Frauds, p.42.how limited in New York and California, p.48.limitations of, by statute in England, p.48.O.Ordinary—his privileges in early English law, p.37.P.Parol evidence—when admissible, pp.123,126,129,160.of contents of lost will is received, p.160.is not so readily in England, p.161.not admitted to vary, contradict, or enlarge the terms of a will, p.187.in what cases is admitted, p.188.Pembroke, Earl of—curious will of, p.15.Perpetuities—statute against, p.150.Personal estate—when a bequest of may be specific, p.97.may include real estate sometimes, p.87.Personal property—age at which will of may be made, p.68.“Personalty”—meaning of term in will, p.120.law of domicile governs in wills, p.173.“Plate”—meaning of term in will, p.200.Power—execution of, in a will, p.52.Power of appointment—given married women to make will, pp.52,91.Publication of will—and in what States required, pp.60-64.R.Raine, Henry—will of, p.132.Rationabiles partes—meaning of in early English law, p.36.Reading, Mrs. Kitty Jenkyn Packe—will of, p.11.Real estate—legacy payable out of, rule as to, p.100.will of, pp.38,69.Restraint of marriage—in will, p.107.curious case of, p.113.not permitted in Roman law, p.107.of widow allowed in our law, p.110.of widower not allowed, p.111.in general not permitted, p.113.Revocation of will—may take place in two modes, p.152.an implied revocation a subject of discussion, p.153.by marriage of feme sole, p.153.implied not by birth of child, p.153.by marriage and birth of child implied, p.154.by subsequent will, when, pp.159,162.not effected by writing “obsolete” on will, p.162.by burning, canceling, tearing, etc., p.163.what acts amount to in New York, p.165.requires two things—act and intent, p.166.Ridley, Hon. Araminta Monck—will of, p.106.Robbins, James—will of, p.110.Roman will—nature, and manner of making, p.32.Roman Catholic—not to marry a, a condition in will, pp.106,111.Roosevelt—will of, founding hospital in New York, p.149.Rose—will of declared void, founding “Rose Benevolent Institution,” p.150.S.Salisbury, Earl of—singular bequest to, p.17.Sandwich, Countess Dowager—will of, p.11.Scotchman—not to marry a, a condition in a will, p.106.Seal—not required in will, except in New Hampshire, p.52Seastedt, Eliza—will of, p.63.Senile dementia—what it is, p.86.when an incapacity to make will, p.87.“Servants”—meaning of term in a will, p.125.Shakspeare—will of, p.21.his singular provision for his wife, p.22.Signature—to will, effect of tearing off by a testator, p.170.Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—bequest to, p.82.Solon—laws of relating to wills, p.31.Specific legacy—defined, p.93.interest on begins from testator’s death, p.116.Starkey, John—will of, p.14.Statute—of Distributions, p.37.of Frauds, pp.38,44,53.of Frauds, influence of in jurisprudence, p.38.of Mortmain, pp.132,135.of Wills, p.38.of 43 Elizabeth in regard to charitable uses, p.133.of 43 Elizabeth not in force in New York, p.135.of 43 Elizabeth, where in force, p.141.Subscription—to will, p.55.Succession, universal—among Romans, p.30.Superstitious use—definition of, pp.132,133.Surrogate—derivation of term, p.40.T.Testament—meaning of term, p.41.Testamentary capacity—generally exists, p.68.as to age, p.68.Testamentary disposition—law places limits on, pp.130,142.limits to, in early English law, p.36.Thelusson, Peter—extraordinary will of, p.143.Thompson, Mr.—singular habits of, p.78.Tonnele, John—will of, p.56.Trusts—what are valid in a will, p.140.Turner, Sharon—will of, p.12.U.United States—bequests to, pp.136,140,150.Uses and trusts—law of, to avoid Statute of Mortmain, p.132.V.Van Hanrigh, Mrs.—will of, p.14.Virginia—bequest to, in trust, by Commodore Levy, p.133.W.West, Lady Alice—curious will of, p.18.Wife—who will answer for in a will, p.124.reproachful allusions to in a will, pp.11,12.affectionate allusions to in a will, pp.13,14.Will—acknowledgment of signature to, p.55.appointment of executor in, p.52.attestation of, p.64.definition and nature of, p.41.destroying, what it signifies, p.164.directions in as to burial, pp.10,11,16,77.directions in as to debts, p.51.divided into two classes, verbal and written, p.42.duplicate, effect of destroying, p.163.erasures in, p.163.holographic, and where valid, p.50.importance of, p.9.inofficious, pp.31,75.introductory clause in, p.51.language of, immaterial, p.53.making, solemnity of act, pp.9,51.may consist of many instruments, pp.52,158.mode of writing, p.53.nature of, among Romans, pp.31,32.not of effect until death, pp.121,152.opinions of others in, freely expressed, pp.10,15.of personal property, pp.68,121.of real estate, p.69.of real estate, must conform to law where real estate is situated, p.182.power of disposition by, in early law, p.36.publication of, where required, pp.60-64.qualities of, p.152.references to wives in, pp.11,12,110.restraints on marriage in, pp.14,105-108,111.requisites as to execution of, p.55.right to make did not exist in early society, p.30.seal not required in, p.52.signing of, how under Statute of Frauds, p.54.signing of, illustrated in cases, pp.56,60.what it is necessary to contain, pp.50,51.witnesses to, number required, p.64.Widow—prohibited remarrying by will, p.108.recommended to marry, p.13.Widower—cannot be prohibited remarrying by will, p.110.Witnesses—manner of signing by, pp.64-66.number required in different States, p.64.cannot take interest by the will, p.119.cutting out names of in will, effect of, p.164.Z.Zimmerman—will of, p.10.
Footnotes:
[1]Illustrated London News, October 18th, 1873. I have selected from this reliable journal many of the examples of curious wills I give in this introduction, taken from Doctors’ Commons, London.
[2]Illustrated London News, February 21st, 1874.
[3]Illustrated London News, November 8th, 1873.
[4]Black. II, 21.
[5]Thirlwall: Hist. of Greece, 187.
[6]Dwight’s Introd. to Maine’s Ancient Law.
[7]Tac. Germ. 2.
[8]Dig. lib. 28, tit. 2.
[9]Spence: Eq. Juris. I, 188.
[10]Selden: Orig. Prob. Juris., 15.
[11]Milton, p. 318.
[12]Selden, pp. 3, 4.
[13]Code: lib. I, tit. 3, leg. 42.
[14]Idem, leg. 41.
[15]Decret. lib. 3, tit. 26, C. 19.
[16]Marriot v. Marriot, 1 Strange 667.
[17]Black. III, 95.
[18]Matt. Paris, fo. 56.
[19]Idem, fo. 161.
[20]1 Strange 667.
[21]Black. II, ch. 32.
[22]Hale, Hist. of Com. Law, 28.
[23]Greenleaf, Evid., vol. I, §26.
[24]Lord Hardwicke, in Ross v. Ewer, 3 Atk. 156, said: “There is nothing that requires so little solemnity as the making of a will of personal estate. There is scarcely any paper writing that will not be admitted as such.”
[25]Moore, 177.
[26]Cro. Eliz. 100.
[27]It should be observed that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction over wills is now abolished in England; and, since 1857, the jurisdiction is given to the Court of Probate and Divorce.
[28]Wills—A.
[29]Swinb. Pt. I, Sec. 12.
[30]29 Car. II, Ch. 3, Sec. 23.
[31]Dig. lib. 37, tit. 12, Sec. 1.
[32]Redfield on Wills, I, p. 184.
[33]20 Johns. 511.
[34]Cole v. Mordaunt, 4 Ves. 196.
[35]Prince v. Hazleton, 20 Johns. 513.
[36]1 Vict. ch. 26.
[37]2 R. S. 60.
[38]Civil Code, 1289-90.
[39]Code, lib. 6, tit. 21.
[40]Leathers v. Greenacre, 53 Maine 561.
[41]2 Curteis 339.
[42]4 Bradf. 154.
[43]Such a will is valid in California, Louisiana, Tennessee, and North Carolina. In the case of Clarke v. Ransome, decided in the Supreme Court, California, October, 1875, the following document was on this ground held to be testamentary in its character:
“Dear Old Nance:—I wish to give you my watch, two shawls, and also $5,000.
Your old friend,E. A. Gordon.”
It appeared in evidence that for some years Mrs. Gordon and Miss Ransome, who was the person meant by “dear old Nance,” had been on terms of intimacy. Mrs. Gordon had previously executed a will, by which she had devised to her brother the whole of the estate, with the exception of several specific legacies, one of which was to Miss Ransome for $1,000. It further appeared that after the will had been duly made and executed, Mrs. Gordon desired to make a further provision for Miss Ransome, and for that purpose drew up, wholly in her own handwriting, and delivered to Miss Ransome, the paper above propounded as a will. The court held that this paper should be admitted to probate as a testamentary instrument; but against this Chief Justice Wallace gave a dissenting opinion, on the ground that the paper was the mere expression of a wish, and was not intended by the decedent to operate as a will.