ner sanctioned by statute. If he re-executes his will, its validity can not be attacked because the dispositions have been changed. Wills, however, often bear on their faces the marks of obliteration, alteration, and interlineation, sometimes so mutilating the former writing that it can not be deciphered. Where such changes appear on the face of a will the presumption is that they were made subsequent to execution.91 This presumption, however, may be rebutted by extrinsic evidence.92

Where mere blank spaces have been filled in, such are not considered as alterations, and this would apply where the name of a beneficiary was interlined in the same ink as the document, it being in effect no more than the filling in of a blank. But if blanks are filled in with different inks, those in the ink in which the will was written or executed are presumed to have been prepared prior to signing, the others afterward. The safest procedure is to initial all interlineations or alterations appearing in the will at the time of execution and to refer to the same in the attestation clause.95

§ 559. The Same Subject: As to Revocation.

94

A will duly executed is not revoked by the fact that the testator makes interlineations on its face or attempts to alter the will by crossing out or erasing certain clauses, irrespective of the effect which such acts may have had upon the particular portion of the will in question.96 The rule under the Statute of Frauds was that the scratching out by the testator of a clause in a will was a revocation of that particular clause."97 This rule,

name to the will as pleaded before the court. Held that his acknowledgment of his own signature amounted to a signing.—In re Bullifant's Will, 82 N. J. Eq. 340, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 72, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 169, 88 Atl. 1093.

93 In re Cadge, L. R. 1 P. & D. 543.

94 Birch v. Birch, 6 Notes of Cas. 581.

95 Wright v. Wright, 5 Ind. 389; Matter of Voorhees' Will, 6 Demarest (N. Y.) 162, 13 N. Y. St. Rep. 183.

96 Goods of Woodward, L. R. 2 P. & D. 206; Wolf v. Bollinger, 62 Ill. 368; Wells v. Wells, 4 T. B. Mon. (20 Ky.) 152, 16 Am. Dec. 150; Wheeler v. Bent, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 61; Matter of Prescott, 4 Redf. (N. Y.) 178; Clark v. Smith, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 140; In re Dixon's Appeal, 55 Pa. St. 424; Cogbill v. Cogbill, 2 Hen. & M. (Va.) 467.

97 Short v. Smith, 4 East 419; Francis v. Grover, 5 Hare 39; Martins v. Gardiner, 8 Sim. 73.

While the intention to revoke a will as a whole may be evi

under a similar statute, has been followed in the United States.98 Cancellation, however, must be complete; the partial obliteration of a devise is of no consequence unless so obliterated as to amount in law to a revocation.99 Likewise, immaterial alterations do not amount to a revocation.1 The revocation of a portion of a will by scratching out the same is not allowed where the effect of the cancellation of such particular portion would cause a change in other dispositions made, such as adding to some devise or legacy. This, in effect, would be creating a new devise or bequest which could be accomplished only by republication or the execution of a new will.2

§ 560. The Same Subject: Alterations Disregarded: Original Will Deciphered If Possible.

Under the statute of 1 Victoria, ch. 26, and by statute in some of the states of the United States, a will can not be

denced by its destruction or obliteration, it has been held that this rule does not apply to an attempt to revoke only a portion of the will.-Gugel v. Vollmer, 1 Dem. Sur. (N. Y.) 484; Matter of Aker's Will, 74 App. Div. 461, 77 N. Y. Supp. 643; Burnham Cromfort, 108 N. Y. 535, 2 Am. St. Rep. 462, 15 N. E. 710; Matter of Curtis' Will, 135 App. Div. 745, 119 N. Y. Supp. 1004; Matter of Van Woert's Will, 147 App. Div. 483, 131 N. Y. Supp. 748.

V.

98 In re Brown's Will, 1 B. Mon. (40 Ky.) 56, 35 Am. Dec. 174; Wells v. Wells, 4 T. B. Mon. (20 Ky.) 152, 154, 16 Am. Dec. 150; Bigelow v. Gillott, 123 Mass. 102,

25 Am. Rep. 32; In re Kirkpatrick's Will, 22 N. J. Eq. 463.

99 Clark v. Smith, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 140.

A will may be partially revoked by the cancelation or tearing of the part revoked. Barfield v. Carr, 169 N. C. 574, 86 S. E. 498.

1 McIntire v. McIntire, 162 U. S. 383, 40 L. Ed. 1009, 16 Sup. Ct. 814.

2 Locke v. James, 11 M. & W. 901; Wolf v. Bollinger, 62 Ill. 368; Doane v. Hadlock, 42 Me. 72, 75; Eschbach v. Collins, 61 Md. 478, 48 Am. Rep. 123; Pringle v. McPherson's Exrs., 2 Brev. (S. C.) 279, 3 Am. Dec. 713.

altered except by another will or codicil executed with all the formalities required for execution of wills, or without authenticating such alteration by a new attestation in the presence of the witnesses, or other form required by statute. The general rule may be stated that no obliteration, addition, interlineation, or alteration of or to any portion of a will, made by the testator subsequent to the execution of the instrument, is effective to alter the dispositions originally made provided the will as it originally stood can be deciphered, or, with the aid of extrinsic evidence, can be supplied. If it is impossible

3 Greville V. Tylee, 7 Moore P. C. C. 320; Goods of Blewitt, L. R. 5 Pro. Div. 116; Wolf v. Bollinger, 62 Ill. 368; Matter of Prescott, 4 Redf. (N. Y.) 178; Lovell v. Quitman, 88 N. Y. 377, 42 Am. Rep. 254.

The statute of 1 Victoria, ch. 26, § 21, provides: "That no obliteration, interlineation, or other alteration made in any will, after the execution thereof, shall be valid or have any effect except so far as the words or effect of the will before such alteration shall not be apparent, unless such alteration shall be executed in like manner as herein before is required for the execution of the will; but the will, with such alteration as part thereof, shall be deemed to be duly executed if the signature of the testator and the subscription of the witnesses be made in the margin, or on some other part of the will opposite or near to such

alteration, or at the foot or end of or opposite to a memorandum referring to such alteration, and written at the end or some other part of the will."

4 Goods of Adamson, L. R. 3 P. & D. 253; Goods of Parr, 29 L. J. Prob. 70; Goods of Harris, 29 L. J. Prob. 79; Goods of Hardy, 30 L. J. Prob. 142; Wolf v. Bollinger, 62 Ill. 368; Doane v. Hadlock, 42 Me. 72, 75; In re Penniman's Will, 20 Minn. 245, 18 Am. Rep. 368; Thomas v. Thomas, 76 Minn. 237, 77 Am. St. Rep. 639, 79 N. W. 104; Wetmore v. Carryl, 5 Redf. (N. Y.) 544; Jackson v. Holloway, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 394, 395; In re Lang's Will, 9 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 521, 30 N. Y. Supp. 388; Matter of Ackerman's Will, 129 App. Div. 584, 114 N. Y. Supp. 197; Matter of Curtis' Will, 135 App. Div. 745, 119 N. Y. Supp. 1004; In re Woods' Will, 144 App. Div. 259, 129 N. Y. Supp. 5; Bethell v. Moore, 19 N. C.

to decipher or supply the portions obliterated, interlineations will be disregarded and the portion which has been so erased will be considered as blank. All provisions added to a will subsequent to execution without republication or according to the statutory formalities, are void and are disregarded, the will being probated as originally executed."

§ 561. The Same Subject: When Made by a Stranger, or Interested Party.

Alterations, interlineations, and the like, made by a stranger without the knowledge or consent of the testator, must be wholly disregarded and have no effect on the will as it originally stood." If made by a beneficiary under the will, the benefits accruing to others should not be affected. He can not destroy such dispo

311, 316; In re Dixon's Appeal, 55 Pa. St. 424; Stover v. Kendall, 1 Coldw. (41 Tenn.) 557.

5 In re Ibbetson, 2 Curt. 337; Townley v. Watson, 3 Curt. 761; Doherty v. Doherty, L. R. 25 Ir. Prob. 297; In re Wilcox's Will, 20 N. Y. Supp. 131.

6 Goods of White, 30 L. J. Prob. 55; Stevens v. Stevens, 6 Demarest (N. Y.) 262, 3 N. Y. Supp. 131, 17 N. Y. St. Rep. 785.

A will can be altered only in the manner prescribed by law, and in general the instrument as altered must be executed anew. Where the word "canceled" was written across the fourth paragraph of the will, which had diagonal lines drawn across it, and

the fifth paragraph was followed by a cross with a circle around it, which was evidently intended to refer to an addition following the attestation clause, the will was entitled to probate, as it was of the date of its original execution, ignoring the attempted modification. In re Hildenbrand's Will, 87 Misc. Rep. 471, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1067.

7 Smith v. Fenner, 1 Gall. (U.S.) 170, Fed. Cas. No. 13046; Doane v. Hadlock, 42 Me. 72; Thomas v. Thomas, 76 Minn. 237, 77 Am. St. Rep. 639, 79 N. W. 104; Monroe v. Huddart, 79 Neb. 569, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 259, 113 N. W. 149; Malin v. Malin, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 625; Holman v. Riddle, 8 Ohio St. 384.