Wampler v. Wampler

Tuck, J., delivered the opinion of this court. We are of opinion that the evidence of William A. Wampler was properly received by the court below, and must be regarded by us in the decision of this appeal. Deakins vs. Hollis, 7 G. & J., 311. The record presents the case of a blind man’s will, executed in due form of law, and attested by three subscribing witnesses.

The will was not read to the testator by or in the presence of these witnesses; but, as proved by the above named witness, it had been dictated by the testator, prepared accordingly, and afterwards read to him, on the day of its execution, before the arrival of the attesting witnesses. The case thus stated relieves us from the necessity of pronouncing upon the validity of a will executed by a blind man, it not appearing that the will had ever been read to him. Whatever the doctrine was, as laid down by the earlier writers, we take it to be well settled at this time, that a last will and testament, such as the one under consideration, is ⁵⁵¹ entitled to probate. And, indeed, we understood the counsel for the appellants as conceding that, on this point, the authorities are against him.

The subject is so fully discussed in the cases cited on the part of the appellees, that we may content ourselves with referring to them, and especially to Longchamp vs. Fish, 5 Bos. & Pul. N. R., 415, which is much like the present. See Godolph. Pt. 1st, ch. 11.

Richardson’s Law of Testaments & Wills, 45. Lovelass on Wills, 264. (25 Law Lib.) It is contended, however, that the testimony of William A. Wampler shows that this will was prepared and executed under circumstances which, in connection with the sickness and infirmity of the testator, raise a proper ground for rejecting the instrument, as the act of a party performed while under the undue and improper influence of those around him at the time. Fraud is not charged in the argument, but, as was held in Davis vs. Calvert, 5 G. & J., 269, this is not necessary to avoid a will, if improper influence can be established.

In the case referred to, we are told what kind and degree of influence is necessary. Now, testing the present will by that rule, we do not perceive that there is sufficient reason shown for rejecting it. It is worthy of remark,