{
  "id": 8720177,
  "name": "Joe TULL v. BENTON STATE BANK, Administrator",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tull v. Benton State Bank",
  "decision_date": "1974-12-16",
  "docket_number": "74-213",
  "first_page": "386",
  "last_page": "387",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "257 Ark. 386"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "516 S.W.2d 583"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "272 S.W. 873",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1925,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 Ark. 62",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1373937
      ],
      "year": 1925,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/169/0062-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 Ark. 89",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1624072
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/254/0089-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 231,
    "char_count": 2846,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.9,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.43761296508020353
    },
    "sha256": "158c78037d943b0ba95ed440639b025f6b0822754fd9c2d040453ce047f685e2",
    "simhash": "1:3049742699ad6e01",
    "word_count": 468
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:16:07.797047+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joe TULL v. BENTON STATE BANK, Administrator"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nThe issue in this will contest is the validity of a will which obviously was extensively altered \u2014 in fact, almost completely rewritten \u2014 by the testatrix after its original execution and attestation. The probate judge sustained the validity of the instrument, on the ground that the testatrix intended for it to be her will. The appellant, the testatrix\u2019s brother, contested the will and now contends, correctly, that the altered instrument must be rejected, because it was not re-executed and re-attested in its altered form.\nThe instrument consists of two pages. The first page, on white paper, is very badly typed. It contains seven numbered paragraphs. The last six of those paragraphs make six different bequests or devises and constitute all the dispositive provisions in the will. Paragraph \u201cSeventh\u201d is the residuary clause, leaving the testatrix\u2019s real property and certain personal property \u201cto my Sister, Rena Glass.\u201d\nThe second page, on blue paper, is neatly typed. It contains the final paragraph, which reads: \u201cFifth: I hereby appoint my sister, Rena Glass, executrix of this my last will and testament on this 25th day of July, 1964.\u201d After that come the signature of the testatrix, Myrtice Westbrook, the attestation clause, and the signatures of two attesting witnesses.\nIt is conclusively shown by the testimony, as well as by the will itself, that page one was retyped (presumably by the testatrix) and substituted for the original page one, which apparently was destroyed. In addition to the variances that we have mentioned \u2014 the differences in the color of the paper, in the typing, and in the paragraph numbers \u2014 page one refers to the testatrix\u2019s sister as Rena Glass, although she did not marry Mr. Glass until some 18 months after the date of the will, July 25, 1964. (On page two Rena\u2019s surname at the time, Andrews, was obviously erased, and the name \u201cGlass\u201d typed over the erasure.)\nThe trial judge based his decision upholding the will upon his finding that it was the testatrix herself who retyped and substituted the first page of the will. We have no quarrel with that finding of fact, but it does not serve to validate the altered will. Here the testatrix, in effect, revoked all the dis-positive provisions in her original will and substituted those appearing on the rewritten first page of the instrument offered for probate. In those circumstances a re-execution and re-attestation of the will were essential to its validity. Walpole v. Lewis, 254 Ark. 89, 492 S.W. 2d 410 (1973); Cook v. Jeffett, 169 Ark. 62, 272 S.W. 873 (1925). Hence the altered instrument cannot be probated as the testatrix\u2019s will.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John W. Barley, for appellant.",
      "Fred E. Briner, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joe TULL v. BENTON STATE BANK, Administrator\n74-213\n516 S.W. 2d 583\nOpinion delivered December 16, 1974\nJohn W. Barley, for appellant.\nFred E. Briner, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0386-01",
  "first_page_order": 421,
  "last_page_order": 422
}