{
  "id": 1650240,
  "name": "Noblit v. Noblit",
  "name_abbreviation": "Noblit v. Noblit",
  "decision_date": "1954-03-01",
  "docket_number": "5-329",
  "first_page": "220",
  "last_page": "221",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "223 Ark. 220"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "265 S.W.2d 520"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "207 Ark. 546",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1481787
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/207/0546-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 A. L. R. 617",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 A. L. R. 466",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 S. W. 2d 996",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 Ark. 543",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8723903
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/179/0543-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 211,
    "char_count": 2570,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.559,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7498740274046866
    },
    "sha256": "e52444a0fd0b3ffdcb2c0cebedba8c5d4517b8474339511bacb5b1b4c151d519",
    "simhash": "1:035e890f6334737a",
    "word_count": 445
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:02:33.600099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mr. Justice Ward not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Noblit v. Noblit."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Robinson, J.\nA petition to set aside an order admitting to probate the will of Gr. H. B. Noblit was denied, and petitioner has appealed. Both the will and the codicil are written in longhand, and may have been written by the testator; however, neither was admitted to probate as a holographic will or codicil.\nThe will proper leaves both the real and personal property to the widow, and does not mention the testator\u2019s daughter, Maude; but the codicil bequeaths to her the sum of $1.00. There is an attestation clause to the will, but none to the codicil. However, the codicil is signed by two witnesses with the word \u201cwitness\u201d following each signature. Of course, if the codicil which names the daughter is not valid, she would inherit the same as if there were no will, since she is not mentioned in the will. Ark. Stat. \u00a7 60-507. Yeates v. Yeates, 179 Ark. 543, 16 S. W. 2d 996, 65 A. L. R. 466. However, the codicil is valid although it has no attesting clause.\n\u201cA will is perfectly valid though there is no attestation clause.\u201d Atkinson on Wills, page 297.\nIn an annotation on the subject in 76 A. L. R. 617, there is cited a long list of cases from numerous states holding that there is a presumption of proper execution even though there is no attestation clause where the attestation is merely by subscription or followed by the word \u201cwitnesses.\u201d\n\u201cAlthough there is some authority to the contrary, the better rule is that a presumption of due execution may arise on proof of the genuineness of the signatures of the testator and the attesting Avitnesses, notwithstanding the attestation clause of the will is incomplete or defective in failing to recite to observance of some formality required by statute in the execution of wills. In fact, according to many authorities, a due and proper execution of a will may he presumed on proof of the circumstances stated above, even though there is no attestation clause, as where the witnesses are merely indicated to be such by the word \u2018witnesses\u2019 appended to their signatures.\u201d 57 Am. Jur. 577.\nAppellant argues that on the authority of McPherson, Executor, v. McKay, Admmistrator, 207 Ark. 546, 181 S. W. 2d 685, a duly attested will can not be superseded by a holographic codicil. Here, however, there are attesting witnesses to the codicil and it is therefore not to be classed as holographic.\nAffirmed.\nMr. Justice Ward not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Robinson, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ilerm Northcutt, for appellant.",
      "' Oscar E. Ellis, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Noblit v. Noblit.\n5-329\n265 S. W. 2d 520\nOpinion delivered March 1, 1954.\n[Rehearing denied March 29, 1954.]\nIlerm Northcutt, for appellant.\n' Oscar E. Ellis, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0220-01",
  "first_page_order": 242,
  "last_page_order": 243
}