From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bateman v. Mariner

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jul 1, 1808
5 N.C. 176 (N.C. 1808)

Opinion

July Term, 1808.

The testator signs his will; it is then attested in his presence by one witness. The testator inserts the "date" and the words "my dearly beloved," and has it attested in his presence by another witness. Testator then acknowledges the execution of the will in presence of both witnesses. This is a valid execution and good to pass testator's real and personal estate.

THE testator signed this will and it was attested in his presence by Levi Bateman. The testator then inserted the date and the words, "my dearly beloved"; he then caused it to be attested in his presence by Woolsey Hathaway, and afterwards acknowledged in the presence of both of the witnesses that it was his act and deed for the uses therein mentioned. It was submitted to the Supreme Court to decide whether this will was good to pass the real as well as the personal estate of the testator.


From Edenton District.


The will being signed by the testator in the presence of one witness and afterwards acknowledged in the presence of the other, and finally acknowledged in the presence of both, has been executed with due solemnity and in a fair and valid manner; and although the testator, in the interval between the attestation of the first and second witness, inserted these words, "dearly beloved," and also the date to the will, yet this addition being wholly immaterial, produces no alteration therein. The Court is therefore of opinion that the will has been well executed and is sufficient to pass both the real and personal estate therein mentioned.


Summaries of

Bateman v. Mariner

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jul 1, 1808
5 N.C. 176 (N.C. 1808)
Case details for

Bateman v. Mariner

Case Details

Full title:JOHN BATEMAN v. JOHN MARINER AND WIFE

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Jul 1, 1808

Citations

5 N.C. 176 (N.C. 1808)

Citing Cases

Ripley v. Armstrong

This was sufficient. Elbeck v. Granberry, 3 N.C. 233; Bateman v. Mariner, 5 N.C. 176. This acknowledgment was…

Rhea v. Norman

granted a new trial in this case, but upon what ground the Reporter does not know, having not been present.…