Will, Execution. An alleged testator, who in his own handwriting had written his name in the exordium clause of a printed form for a will and had filled in the rest of the blank form except in the testimonium and attestation clauses, asked three persons to see him sign his will and thereupon wrote in the date in the testimonium clause, but did not sign the document, and in his presence and in the presence of each other the witnesses subscribed their names below the attestation clause, and he left the house. Five minutes later he returned, stating, "I forgot to sign my name to my will." Thereupon, in the presence of the same three witnesses he wrote his name in a blank space in the attestation clause but nowhere else. The witnesses did not sign again. Held, that the statement of the alleged testator to the witnesses showed that he had not written his name in the exordium clause intending it to stand as his signature to the will, that the writing of his name in the testimonium clause, assuming it to have been good as a signature, was not attested by three witnesses who subscribed the will after its execution by the testator as required by our statute, and therefore that the will never was properly executed by the alleged testator.
LORING, J.
The difference between the case made out in this suit and that made out in Meads v. Earle, 205 Mass. 553, is to be found in the statement made by Elizabeth on her return to the Colomy kitchen five minutes after the attesting witnesses had subscribed their names to the instrument now propounded as her last will, namely: "I forgot to sign my name to my will." That remark showed that she did not write her name in the exordium clause intending it to stand as her signature to the will when complete.
It is apparent that when the attesting witnesses subscribed their names the instrument had not been signed and that if it be assumed that in subsequently filling in her name in the testimonium clause Elizabeth did sign the instrument the attesting witnesses did not afterwards subscribe their names. It follows that the paper never was properly executed as the will of Elizabeth Bradley. See Chase v. Kittredge, 11 Allen, 49; Marshall v. Mason, 176 Mass. 216.
By the terms of the report a "decree is to be entered reversing the decree of the Probate Court and disallowing the instrument offered for probate as the last will and testament of Elizabeth G. Bradley, and fixing the amount to be allowed to the petitioner for his costs and expenses and remanding the cause to the Probate Court for further proceedings."
So ordered.