From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rhea v. Norman

Superior Court of North Carolina Edenton
Apr 1, 1805
3 N.C. 342 (N.C. Super. 1805)

Opinion

(April Term, 1805.)

There ought to be an attestation by two witnesses of every part of a will of lands; and, therefore, a will which was attested by one witness, and afterwards the date inserted, and then the other witness subscribed, is not good to pass lands.

A WILL, dated 12 February, 1804, had been proved, and another was offered for probate, dated the 14th of the same month. On the trial it appeared one witness subscribed and then the testator inserted the word February, and seemingly in the place of another word, after which the witness attested.


There ought to be an attestation by two witnesses of every part of a will of land; and, therefore, this will, if good at all, can only be so for the personalty.


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

NOTE. — See Bateman v. Mariner, 5 N.C. 176, in which the Court says that the insertion of the words "dearly beloved," and the date, is wholly immaterial, and produces no alteration in the will.


Summaries of

Rhea v. Norman

Superior Court of North Carolina Edenton
Apr 1, 1805
3 N.C. 342 (N.C. Super. 1805)
Case details for

Rhea v. Norman

Case Details

Full title:RHEA v. NORMAN'S EXECUTOR

Court:Superior Court of North Carolina Edenton

Date published: Apr 1, 1805

Citations

3 N.C. 342 (N.C. Super. 1805)