Revocation is an act of the mind which must be demonstrated by some outward and visible sign. The statute prescribes what those signs are. If any of these are performed in the slightest manner, joined with a declared intent to revoke, it will be an effectual revocation.[275]
It would be manifestly a harsh and an unjust construction to place upon the statute, that because a will was destroyed in any one of the modes pointed out, that a strict interpretation required a revocation. Hence, where the destruction was done unadvisedly, or by some other casualty, it was held, it could not amount to a revocation. Thus, where a will was gnawed to pieces by rats, but the pieces, being collected, were afterwards put together, the will was admitted to probate.[276]
And in Perkes v. Perkes,[277] a testator having quarreled with a person who was a devisee in his will, in a fit of passion took the will out of the desk, and, addressing some words to a bystander, tore it twice through, but was prevented from proceeding further by the interference of the other person and the submission of the devisee; and he then became calm, put up the pieces and said: “It is a good job it is no worse”; and after fitting the pieces together, added: “There is nothing ripped that will be any signification to it.” The jury found that the act of canceling was incomplete at the time the testator was stopped; and the court was of opinion that that conclusion was right, and that the will was not revoked.
Where a testator, with an intent to revoke his will, endeavors to destroy it in some of the modes pointed out, but through the fraud, imposition, or other deception of a person; the act is prevented being completed, it shall not prevent a revocation. The following case is a striking one, and illustrates this principle. A testator, (who had for two months declared himself discontented with his will) being one day in bed near the fire, ordered M W, who attended him, to fetch his will, which she did and delivered it to him, it being then whole, only somewhat erased. He opened it, looked at it, then gave it something of a rip with his hands, and so tore it as almost to tear a bit off, then rumpled it together, and threw it upon the fire, but it fell off. It must soon have been burnt, had not M W taken it up, which she did, and put it in her pocket. The testator did not see her take it up, but seemed to have some suspicion of it, as he asked her what she was about, to which she made little or no answer. The testator, several times afterwards, said that was not and should not be his will, and bid her destroy it. She said at first, “so I will, when you have made another”; but afterwards, upon his repeated inquiries, she told him that she had destroyed it, though in fact it was never destroyed, that she believed he imagined it was destroyed. She asked him who his estate would go to when the will was burnt; he answered, to his sister and her children. He afterwards told a person that he had destroyed his will, and should make no other until he had seen his brother, J M, and desired the person to tell his brother that he wanted to see him. He afterwards wrote to his brother, saying, “I have destroyed my will, which I made, for upon serious consideration, I was not easy in my mind about that will,” and desired him to come down, saying, “If I die intestate, it will cause uneasiness.” The testator, however, died without making another will. The jury, with the concurrence of the judge, thought this a sufficient revocation of the will, and on a motion for a new trial it was so held, and that throwing it on the fire, with an intent to burn, though it was only very slightly singed and fell off, was sufficient within the statute.[278]
The English courts are more strict in requiring a substantial compliance with the statute than our courts are. In the American cases, the intention is looked upon as the most material and controlling element: as where a testator asked for his will on his sick bed, and was handed an old letter, which he destroyed, supposing it to be his will, it was held to be a good revocation.[279]
And where a testator threw his will upon the fire, animo revocandi, and it was taken off and preserved, before any words were burned, and without the testator’s knowledge, it was decided, by a very able court, that it did amount to revocation.[280] So, where a testatrix burns a paper, which she supposes to be her will, and by mistake or the fraud of others burns a different paper, and remains under this misapprehension during her life, it amounts, in law, to a revocation.[281] But in a case in Vermont it was held that the mere intention or desire to revoke one’s will, until carried into effect in the manner prescribed in the statute, can have no effect; however, if such intention is defeated by fraud, a court of equity will prevent a party moving from any benefit of such fraud.[282]
The two words “canceling” and “obliterating” have occasioned more uncertainty than the others used in the statute, because it is not so easily or exactly determined what acts shall amount to a cancelation and what to an obliteration of the will. In one case, the will was found with another testamentary paper, but the place in which the names of the attesting witnesses should have appeared, upon the latter, was scratched over with a pen and ink, so that no letter of a name could be deciphered: it was held that this paper was thereby revoked, and the will was admitted to probate alone.[283]
It seems to be settled, that from the fact of interlineations and erasures appearing upon the face of a will, no such presumption arises, as in the case of deeds and other instruments, that they were made before execution. But in regard to a will the case is different. Hence, where the testator makes an alteration in his will by erasure and interlineation, or in any other mode, without authenticating such alteration by a new attestation in the presence of witnesses, or other form required by the statute, the will, therefore, stands in legal force the same as it did before, so far as it is legible after the attempted alteration,[284] but if the former reading cannot be made out by inspection of the paper, probate is decreed, and such illegible portions are treated as blanks.
In a case in Pennsylvania,[285] where the will was found in the testator’s private desk, with the seals of the envelope broken, and a black line drawn through the name of the testator, and there was no evidence how or with what intent it was done, it was held a sufficient revocation. Vice-Chancellor Wood, in a case in New York,[286] decided that where a testator, having torn off the signature from the first four sheets of his will, and struck his pen through the signature upon the remaining sheet, the animus revocandi being proved, it was a sufficient revocation.
The clearest statement of the law on this head was made by an eminent judge, whose language very clearly sums up the law. Chief Justice Ruffin, in a case in North Carolina,[287] says: