Sisters of St. Benedict, 67 Minn. 335, 69 N. W. 1090; Quinn v. Shields, 62 Ia. 129, 17 N. W. 437, 49 Am. Rep. 141.
The competency of witnesses and the valid ity of devises to witnesses, or to the husband or wife of a witness, are questions usually controlled by statute; 3 Jarm. Wills (Ran dolph & Talcott's ed.) 775.
A holographic will is one wholly written, dated and signed by the hand of the testa tor himself ; In re Lakemeyer's Estate, 135 Cal. 28, 66 Pac. 961, 87 Am. St. Rep. 96; In re Plumel's Estate, 151 Cal. 77, 90 Pac. 192, 121 Am. St. Rep. 100; it need not be in any particular form ; In re Noyes' Estate, 40 Mont. 190, 105 Pac. 1017, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1145, 20 Ann. Cas. 366; but the words "my will" in another handwriting as a caption do not invalidate it ; Baker v. Brown, 83 Miss. 793, 36 South. 539, 1 Ann. Cas. 371; Stead v. Curtis, 191 Fed. 529, 112 C., C. A. 463. The statutes in the different states differ to some extent, but agree substantially with the Eng lish statute of Charles II.
Holographic wills in general require no at testation; 3 Jarm. Wills (Rand. & Talc. ed.) 767 ; but, if required, it is sufficient if the testator acknowledge his signature to two witnesses ; Stewart v. Stewart, 56 N. J. Eq. 761, 40 Atl. 438 ; Matter of Akers, 74 App. Div. 461, 77 N. Y. Supp. 643, order affirmed 173 N. Y. 620, 66 N. E. 1103. Such will is not invalidated by bearing an attestation clause without witnesses ; Ainsworth v. Briggs, 49 Tex. Civ. App. 344, 108 S. W. 753; and the absence of an attestation clause is not fatal ; In re Palmer's Will; 42 Misc. 469, 87 N. Y. Supp. 249; nor that the amount of the lega cy is in figures ; Succession of Vanhille, 49 La. Ann. 107, 21 South. 191, 62 Am. St. Rep. 642. The writing of the name of testator at the commencement of a paper is not suffi cient •signing ; Roy v. Roy's Ex'r, 16 Grat. (Va.) 418, 84 Am. Dec. 696; but the writing of his name in a clause in the will is suffi cient; In re Camp's Estate, 134 Cal. 233, 66 Elm 227. The fact that it is holographic does not dispense with the acknowledgment of his signature by the testator and his dec laration that It is his will ; In re Turell, 166 N. Y. 330, 59 N. E. 910; Matter of Moore, 109 App. Div. 762, order affirmed 187 N. Y. 573, 80 N. E. 1114; but probate will be refused where both of the subscribing witnesses swear positively that there was no publica tion and that they did not know that it was a will until long after they signed it ; In re Wilmerding, 75 Misc. 432, 135 N. Y. Supp. 516.
A memorandum written on the front page of a book, dated eight years before the death of testator and signed by testator, reading "everything is Lou's," is insufficient ; Smith v. Smith, 112 Va. 205, 70 S. 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1018. A letter written six months before death has been approved as a valid holographic will ; Buffington v. Thomas, 84 Miss. 157, 36 South. 1039, 105 Am. St. Rep.
423, where it was held that the insertion of a request to "answer at once" or "this is private" raised no presumption of a design of the writer to alter the nature of the in strument. A letter was also held good as a will; Alston v. Davis, 118 N. C. 202, 24 S. E. 15; and also in Dougherty v. Hol scheider, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 31, 88 S. W. 1113, where it was wholly written by the testator and the attestation of subscribing witnesses was held unnecessary.
A holographic will of an illiterate testator was sustained and the words at the begin ning, "I am going on a journey and may not ever return, and if I do not, this is my last request," were held not conditional; Eaton v. Brown, 193 U. S. 411, 24 Sup. Ct. 487, 48 L. Ed. 730, where English cases contra are reviewed.
Where such will was found in a locked safe in which testator kept valuable papers, it meets the requirements of a statute that a holographic will must have been found among valuable papers of decedent, although there was no other paper in that particular drawer of the safe; Harper v. Harper, 148 N. C. 453, 62 S. E. 553.
, An unofficions will, in the civil law, testa, mentum inofficium, was one made in disre gard of natural obligations as to inheritance; Stein v. Wilzinski, 4 Redf. Sur. (N. Y.) 450; and was set aside if it disinherited children without assigning any cause, though this was prevented by any legacy however small ; 2 Bla. Com. 502; Hadley, Rom. L. 317. It has no place in the common law ; 1 Fost. & F. 578. An unnatural division of his property is not sufficient, but where there is evidence of an insane delusion in respect to a certain person or thing, and the disposition of the property is in accord ance therewith and indicates the effect of such delusion, such disposition may be con sidered in connection with the evidence tend ing to prove an insane delusion; Morgan v. Morgan, 30 App. D. C. 436, 13 Ann. Cas. 1037. To the same effect, Donnan v. Dolman, 236 Ill. 341, 86 N. E. 279.
A will is one, known in some jurisdictions, authorizing the executor to act without bond and to manage, control, and settle the estate without the intervention of any court whatsoever; In re MacDonald's Estate, 29 Wash. 422, 428, 69 Pac. 1111.
A mystic will is a form of testament made under Spanish laW which prevailed in Louisi ana and California. It is recognized in the Louisiana Civil Code; see Broutin v. Vas sant, 5 Mart. 0. S. (La.) 182; Schoul. Wills § 9. It is in writing and signed by the testa tor, with seven witnesses. It takes its name from the liberty given the testator, if be wishes to conceal the disposition of his prop erty, to enclose it in an envelope and write his name thereon, and the witnesses did the same, with a declaration that it was his last will and testament ; Adams v. Norris, 23 How. (U. S.) 353, 16 L. Ed. 539. See TESTA ME NT.