LAST WILLS AND TESTAMENTS. 523 



To this there were no witnesses, the law of Louisiana requiring none. 

 After ten years' litigation or controversy this was also sustained as a 

 will (Succession of Ehrenberg, 21 La. Ann., 280). The sufficiency of 

 the legal attainments of each testator in these instances, it is true, 

 was enough, but to establish that fact old Nance and Mrs. Loper un- 

 doubtedly paid handsomely. In the following case the success of the 

 would-be testator was not so signal : 



In 1876 an instrument purporting to be the last will and testament 

 of John Kelly was offered for probate to the Surrogate of the County 

 of New York. It was partly written and partly printed, and was ap- 

 parently a short form of will such as may be purchased at a stationer's. 

 After disposing of his property, this document ran as follows : 



" Likewise I make, constitute, and appoint Edward McCarthy to 

 be executor, J. Kelly, of this my last will and testament, hereby re- 

 voking all former wills by me made. In witness whereof I have here- 

 unto subscribed my name and affixed my seal the 24th day of July, 

 1874, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty. 



Witnesses : 



Ed ward McCarthy, 

 Daniel Van Clief. 



Subscribed by John Kelly , the testator named, etc." 



When the deceased requested the witnesses to sign the instrument, 

 the name J. Kelly had already been written by him where it first ap- 

 pears. The witnesses then signed it, and afterward the deceased 

 wrote his name where it appears in the attestation clause. The point 

 in dispute touched the first requirement of the statute : Was the sub- 

 scription J. Kelly in the body of the instrument a " subscribing at the 

 end of the will " ? The subscription John Kelly in the attestation 

 clause was, of course, bad, being made after the witnesses had signed. 

 It appeared from the evidence that the testator presented the instru- 

 ment to the witnesses, saying : " I drawed up a will for fear anything 

 might happen me before coming back ; in case there was any dispute 

 about the trifle of money I have, I want you to witness this will." 

 The name J. Kelly had been written in before this was said. The 

 surrogate rejected the instrument, as not executed and attested in the 

 manner prescribed by law. The General Term reversed his decree, 

 directed that the will be admitted to probate, and that letters testa- 

 mentary issue thereon (7 Huec, 290). The Court of Appeals then 

 finally settled the law in the case by reversing the Supreme Court and 

 setting aside the instrument as absolutely void (67 N. Y., 409). A 

 curious circumstance in connection with the proof of this instrument 

 is the fact that the Supreme Court were unanimously of the opinion 

 that this document was a will, while the Court of Appeals were unani- 

 mously of the opinion that it was not ! Even when, by a mistake in 

 turning over the paper, the signature is put on the back of a blank 



