The proposed will had been made by the testatrix when ill. She had signed a first will two days earlier. Her doctor said she was exhausted and was drowsy and had complained to her. The treating doctor that she had been disturbed by the introduction of a strange young man to her room. The strange young man was an attesting witness to her alleged further will. The trial judge accepted the evidence of the attesting witnesses, one of whom was the son of the person who would take under the alleged will.
Held: It was not necessary to show that the will was the result of a fraudulent scheme on the part of the beneficiary or the attesting witnesses. It was enough that suspicion attached to the execution of the second will which was not removed. Davey LJ said that: ‘wherever a will is prepared under circumstances which raise a well-grounded suspicion that it does not express the mind of the testator, the court ought not to pronounce in favour of it unless that suspicion is removed.’
Judges:
Davey LJ, Tyrell LJ
Citations:
[1894] P 151
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ark and Others v Kaur and Others ChD 17-Sep-2010
The proponents sought to have the will (executed in India) admitted to probate. The daughters denied that he had executed it. The court heard detailed explanations of the procedures said to have been undertaken for the making and execution of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Wills and Probate
Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.424107
