In New York the doctrine was followed in early cases : Jackson v. Babcock, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 394, where it was said that "there is no question, since the statute of wills, as well as before ;" and that there was never any doubt that when a paper is referred to, its contents become a part of the will, and the requirement of signing at the end is not af fected ; Tonnele v. Hall, 4 N. Y. 140, where the paper was a copy of a map annexed after the signature. The doctrine was, however, not applied in the case of wills not actually signed at the physical end (as where some material part of the will followed the signa ture) ; In re Andrews, 162 N. Y. 1, 56 N. E. 529, 48 L. R. A. 662, 76 Am. St. Rep. 294 ; and in other cases the doctrine seems to have been rejected, and it was said that an unat tested paper of testamentary nature referred to cannot be taken as part of the will; Vogel v. Lehritter, 139 N. Y. 223, 34 N. E. 914 ; In re Emmons, 110 App. Div. 701, 96 N. Y. Supp. 506, where a will invalidly executed was not made valid by a subsequent codicil properly executed referring to it, and it was said gen erally that no testamentary provision in oth er unexecuted or unattested papers can be in corporated into a will ; where there was no indication that testator intended to make an agreement part of a will and it would make no change, it should not be included ; In re Martindale, 69 Misc. 522, 127 N. Y. Supp. 887.
The paper must be described in clear and definite terms, and where a sum of money was given to be held in trust "for purposes set forth in a sealed letter, which will be found with the will," it was held not to des ignate a specific existing document with such definiteness as to admit of its incorporation in the will ; Appeal of Bryan, 77 Conn. 240,
58 Atl. 748, 68 L. R. A. 353, 107 Am. St. Rep. 34, 1 Ann. Cas. 393 ; and where the letter directed to whom the money should be paid, being testamentary in character it was in effective, not being executed as a will ; Bryan v. Bigelow, 77 Conn. 604, 60 AU. 266, 107 Am.
St. Rep. 64. As to the precision required in the clause incorporating the document, there is some doubt; parol evidence has been ad mitted to show what paper it was ; 11 Moore P. C. 427 ; 1 Nev. & Man. 576 ; the reference must be certain as to the exact paper and as to its existence ; [1902] L. R. P. D. 238 ; In re Young's Estate, 123 Cal. 342, 55 Pac. 1011; Phelps v. Robbins, 40 Conn. 273; at the time the will was made ; Chambers v. McDaniel, 28 N. C. 226; Johnson v. Clarkson, 3 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 305 ; St. John's Parish v. Bost wick, 8 App. D. C. 452.
Provisions of a trust deed not attested as a will cannot be incorporated by reference for the purpose 'of denoting a bequest not made by the will ; Hatheway v. Smith, 79 Conn. 506, 65 Atl. 1058, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 310, 9 Ann. Cas. 99 ; nor can an ambiguous deed of bargain and sale be converted into a will by parol evidence tending to show an animus testandi in the maker ; Noble v. Fick es, 230 Ill. 594, 82 N. E. 950, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1203 and note, 12 Ann. Cas. 282; Clay v. Layton, 134 Mich. 317, 96 N. W. 458, f011owed in Dodson v. Dodson, 142 Mich. 586, 105 N. W. 1110.
See DEVISE; LEGACY. See also Schouler ; Jarman ; Theobaid, Wills ; CANCELLATION ; LATENT AMBIGUITY; AMBIGUITY; MURDER; NUNCUPATIVE WILL; UNDUE INFLUENCE; PRECATORY WORDS.
As to conditions in restraint of marriage, see CONDITION ; RESTRAINT OF MARRIAGE.
As to what, is necessary to constitute a de vise by implication, see 10 L. R. A. 816, n.