Continue reading "Wills: An unresolved question"
This post is only available to members.
Wills: An unresolved question
David Schmitz considers whether the will must be present when a testator acknowledges their signature to witnesses ‘The existence of a perceived danger of substitution in some cases, and the desirability of reducing the need for oral evidence in consequent litigation, can justify the inference that the draftsman did intend to impose a requirement for …
Cases Referenced
Cases in bold have further reading - click to view related articles.
- Brown v Skirrow [1902] P 3
- Couser v Couser [1996] 3 All ER 256
- Daintree v Butcher and Fasulo (1888) 13 PD 102
- Hindmarsh v Charlton (1861) 8 HLC
- Hudson v Parker (1844) 1 Rob Ecc 14
- Newton & anor v Clarke (1839) 2 Curt
- Re Colling [1972] 3 All ER 729
- Re Groffman [1969] 2 All ER 108
- Re Gunstans Goods (1882) 7 PD 102
- Smith & Smith v Smith (1869) LR 1 P&D 143