Vide Pacific Law Rep., Nov. 9, 1875.
[44] Redfield on Wills, I, p. 675.
[45] Swimb. Pt. I, Sec. 3.
[46] Redfield on Wills, I, p. 5.
[47] N. H. Rev. Stat. Ch. 156, Sec. 6.
[48] Hight v. Wilson, 1 Dall. 94; Arndt v. Arndt, 1 S. & R. 256.
[49] Campbell v. Logan, 2 Bradf. 90.
[50] Swimb., Pt. 4, Sec. 25.
[51] The statute of Pennsylvania requires every will to “be in writing,” and the curious question was recently presented to the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, whether a writing on a slate, intended by the decedent to be her last will and testament, came within the statute. The court thought the case not within the spirit of the statute, because a slate was neither intended for nor adapted to writing of a permanent character. The rule has been carried quite far enough by the admission to probate of wills written with lead pencils, as was done in Dyer’s Estate, 3 Ecc. E. 92, and in Dickson v. Dickson, 1 Id. 222. In 21 P. F. Smith, 454, it was thought that a will should not be written or signed in pencil, on account of the facility of alteration; but the point was not decided. In Merritt v. Clason, 12 Johns. 102, a memorandum required by the Statute of Frauds, written with a lead pencil, was held sufficient, and in Clason v. Bailey, 14 Johns. 484, this point was affirmed. In Rymes v. Clarkson, 1 Phillim. 22, it was ruled that a codicil written in pencil was valid. See also Geary v. Physic, 5 Barn. and Cress. 234, and McDowell v. Chambers, 1 Strobh. Eq. 347.
[52] Jarman on Wills, 70.