“Exactly.”
“All right, let’s get to the point. Suppose the first page is a forgery and the second page is genuine. That’s more apt to be the case.”
“Under those circumstances, the same rule of law applies. The destruction of a portion of the will does not constitute a partial revocation. The contents of the first page of the will could then be proven by independent, oral evidence, or, as we say in the law, by parol evidence.”
“And if, in the first page of that will Christopher Milbers got a hundred thousand dollars instead of ten thousand dollars, he could still collect it?”
“If he could prove that that was the original will.”
Bertha said, “Suppose we can prove that the first page has been submitted, but can’t prove what was on the original first page?”
“Under those circumstances, in my opinion, the entire will would be refused probate, inasmuch as a court would have no way on earth of knowing what percentage of the testator’s property should be affected by the residuary clause. It is quite possible that the first page of the will might have contained a dozen specific bequests.”
“And if the will wasn’t admitted to probate?” Bertha asked.
“Then any prior will would be effective, unless it appeared that the testator had, by some positive action, endeavored to revoke that will. It is quite possible that you could get sufficient proof of a revocation without getting sufficient proof of the contents of the genuine will which he made last.”
“Then what?” Bertha asked.