{ "id": 8719864, "name": "Ernest PATRICK et al v. Betty Lou RANKIN, Executrix", "name_abbreviation": "Patrick v. Rankin", "decision_date": "1974-03-25", "docket_number": "73-249", "first_page": "310", "last_page": "311", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "256 Ark. 310" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "506 S.W.2d 853" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "22 A. 125", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "year": 1890, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "46 N.J. Eq. 515", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J. Eq.", "case_ids": [ 814749 ], "year": 1890, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nj-eq/46/0515-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 A. 260", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "year": 1927, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "289 Pa. 267", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 1103319 ], "year": 1927, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa/289/0267-01" ] }, { "cite": "241 Ark. 842", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1724197 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/241/0842-01" ] }, { "cite": "21 Ark. 309", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1868333 ], "year": 1860, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/21/0309-01" ] }, { "cite": "237 Ark. 798", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1737928 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/237/0798-01" ] }, { "cite": "368 S.W. 2d 280", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10160145, 1681253 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sw2d/368/0280-01", "/ark/236/0829-01" ] }, { "cite": "236 Ark. 829", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1681253 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/236/0829-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 281, "char_count": 3152, "ocr_confidence": 0.821, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.180545369522428e-08, "percentile": 0.5091932000668765 }, "sha256": "629e60d29190b71a6bdb945bffcdbcc5b9cf53283bafc0ad9569eee58a62de5c", "simhash": "1:4fc8a4a3186adc81", "word_count": 548 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:14.527021+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Ernest PATRICK et al v. Betty Lou RANKIN, Executrix" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Frank Holt. Justice.\nCalvin Curtis Patrick died at the age of 84, unmarried and without issue. About one year prior to his death, an attorney prepared a will divising all of Patrick\u2019s property to appellee, Betty Lou Rankin, who was related to Patrick by marriage and had provided care for him since her childhood. Patrick had been totally blind from childhood and was illiterate. The will was signed in the attorney\u2019s office by Patrick with the assistance of Mrs. Rankin. Two witnesses then signed the will pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 60-403 (Repl. 1971). The court held the will valid.\nAppellants, decedent\u2019s brothers and sisters challenging the will, contend for reversal \u201cthat the lower court erred in ruling that an individual who was blind, illiterate and had never been able to read or write could execute a will with only two witnesses.\u201d Appellants ask us to declare that an illiterate blind man cannot be assisted in making a signature, which assertedly constitutes only his \u201cmark,\u201d and must, therefore, have three witnesses to his will. We cannot agree.\n. It is true that where the testator signs by a mark, it is mandatory that three signatures be affixed, one to witness the testator\u2019s mark and two to attest the will. See \u00a7 60-403, supra, Green v. Smith, 236 Ark. 829, 368 S.W. 2d 280 (1963), and Priola v. Priola, 237 Ark. 798, 377 S.W. 2d 29 (1967). We have long held, however, that when the testator is assisted in signing a will, the act is his own and not the act of another under authority from him. Vines v. Clingfost, 21 Ark. 309 (1860). See generally 2 Page on Wills \u00a7 19.53 (3d. Ed. 1960). In the case involving a hundred year old blind testatrix who had not been able to write for eighteen years, we approved her signature although she was assisted. Coleman v. Walls, 241 Ark. 842, 410 S.W. 2d 749 (1967). Although we have the additional factor of illiteracy in the case at bar, we hold that the controlling factor in an assisted signature is not the testator\u2019s literacy but his intent. As one court explained:\nWhether a testator can write at all makes no difference in determining the validity of a will, nor does it matter whether he is so stricken that he cannot write, or can write only with difficulty. Where testator\u2019s mental conception is entirely clear and he desires to sign the will, but his physical powers unassisted will not permit it, and such assistance is called in, the incident of assistance becomes immaterial so long as there is a conscious wish of the testator that his hand should make the signature. Brehony v. Brehony, 289 Pa. 267, 137 A. 260 (1927).\nIn accord is Fritz v. Turner, 46 N.J. Eq. 515, 22 A. 125 (1890).\nThe testator\u2019s intent is not challenged in this appeal. His signature on the will is clearly legible. Also, it appears that he was assisted in subscribing his signature in other business affairs. Since two witnesses properly signed the will, the statutory requirements of \u00a7 60-403, supra, are met.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Frank Holt. Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Jones & Segers, for appellants.", "Kincaid, Horne & Trumbo, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Ernest PATRICK et al v. Betty Lou RANKIN, Executrix\n73-249\n506 S.W. 2d 853\nOpinion delivered March 25, 1974\nJones & Segers, for appellants.\nKincaid, Horne & Trumbo, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0310-01", "first_page_order": 346, "last_page_order": 347 }