Hudson v Parker: 1844

The court made observations on the meaning of the requirement in the Wills Act 1837 that the witness ‘shall attest and shall subscribe the will in the presence of the testator, but no form of attestation shall be necessary’. He pointed to the statutory requirement of attestation in addition to subscription and gave as the meaning of ‘attest’ to bear witness to a fact: ‘I conceive the witnesses in a will bear witness to all that the statute requires attesting witnesses to attest, namely, that the signature was made or acknowledged in their presence. The statute does say ‘that no form of attestation shall be necessary’, still the witnesses must attest, although the outward work of attestation may be subscription only’.


Dr. Lushington


(1844) 1 Rob Ecc 14


Wills Act 1837

Cited by:

CitedSherrington v Sherrington CA 22-Mar-2005
The deceased, a solicitor of long standing, was said to have signed his will without having read it, and had two witnesses sign the document without them knowing what they were attesting. He had remarried, and the will was challenged by his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.223790