[332] See In re Freeman, 46 Hun, 458, in which a will was admitted to probate on the concurrence of Learned, J., who held that the relation of physician and surgeon was not established, and Landon, J., who held that the request to sign constituted a waiver; Williams, J., dissenting, on the ground that the relation was established in the case, and the waiver could not be assumed without proof of the patient’s mental capacity to comprehend the waiver; that it was not proper to assume testator’s competency to waive in order to enable the witness to testify that the patient was competent to make a will.
On the analogous case of an attorney as witness to a will, see Matter of Coleman. 111 N. Y., 220; and N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., s. 836, as amended Act 1893, c. 295.
[333] Record v. Village of Saratoga Springs, 46 Hun, 448 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., N. Y.). See also Hope v. Troy and Lansingburg R. R. Co., 40 Hun, 438; Jones v. B., B. & W. E. R. R. Co., 3 N. Y. Supp., 253.
[334] Supra, p. 113, note 7.
[335] 28 Abb. N. C., 37 (N. Y. Com. Pl., Gen. T., 1891).
[336] Marx v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 56 Hun, 575 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., Gen. T.).
[337] Buffalo L. & T. Co. v. Masonic Mut. Aid Assn., 126 N. Y., 450.
[338] Supra, p. 98.
[339] Collins v. Mack, 31 Ark., 684. The main point of this decision was that the information was not necessary; see infra. p. 124.
[340] v. Briggs, 20 Mich., 34.