Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Baker: Law Of Disputed And Forged Documents, Maurice A. Nernberg
Baker: Law Of Disputed And Forged Documents, Maurice A. Nernberg
Michigan Law Review
A Review of Law of Disputed and Forged Documents. By J. Newton Baker.
Wills-Holographic-Evidence As To Testamentary Intent, Alan P. Goldstein S. Ed.
Wills-Holographic-Evidence As To Testamentary Intent, Alan P. Goldstein S. Ed.
Michigan Law Review
The deceased had in her possession, at the time of her death, an envelope entitled 'Will of Ella McNair." The envelope contained three separate sheets of paper dated some nineteen months prior to Ella's death, upon which was written, entirely in the hand of the deceased, what purported to be a will. The document opened with the statement "I, Ella McNair . . . do hereby make my last will." The exordium was followed by fifteen specific bequests, and then the writing ended abruptly at the middle of the back of the third sheet. At the top of the second …
Wills - Holographic Revocation - Reference To Nontestamentary Act To Determine Will To Which Revocation Refers, William H. Shipley
Wills - Holographic Revocation - Reference To Nontestamentary Act To Determine Will To Which Revocation Refers, William H. Shipley
Michigan Law Review
Testator deposited his last will and testament with a trust company for safekeeping and received a receipt acknowledging the deposit. Several years later he wrote on the bottom of the receipt: "The Will and Testament above referred to I hereby declare void." The writing was signed and dated. On his death his widow alleged that he had died intestate and the probate court entered a decree recognizing the widow as sole distributee of the estate, valued at twelve million dollars. The legatees in the will instituted the present proceedings against the widow for a rule to show cause why she …
The Doctrine Of Price V. Neal, Ralph W. Aigler
The Doctrine Of Price V. Neal, Ralph W. Aigler
Michigan Law Review
In 1715 the case of Jenys v. Fawler, et al. came before Lord Raymond at the Guildhall. It was an action by the indorsee of a bill of exchange against the acceptor who offered to prove by witnesses who were acquainted with the drawer's signature and who believed that the signature of the drawer appearing on the bill in suit was not genuine, that the bill really was a forgery. The Chief Justice refused to admit the testimony "from the danger to negotiable notes, and because a man might with design write contrary to his usual method." This indicates that …