TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Weigel v. Weigel

Weigel against Weigel

Weigel v. Weigel, 5 Watts 486 (1836)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1836
Citations
5 Watts 486
Headnotes
Proof of the signature of testator to a will by two witnesses, is prima facie evidence of its execution, although the body of it be not in the handwriting of the testator.
Summary
ERROR to Westmoreland county. Jacob Weigel against Catherine Weigel. Issue, devisavit vel non, to try the validity of a paper dated the 14th of May 1835, purporting to be the last will and testament of Daniel Weigel, deceased. The plaintiff, to maintain the issue on his part, offered to prove by two witnesses, that the name of “Daniel Weigel” affixed to the paper, purporting to be his will, was the proper handwriting of the said Daniel Weigel. This evidence the defendant objected to, because the body of the paper was not in the handwriting of the alleged testator. The court sustained the objection, and a verdict was rendered for the defendant. cited the act of the 8th of April 1833. 1 Park. & Johns. Dig. 466.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

The signature of a party is prima fa^ie evidence of execution; and though it is less forcible than if the body of the instrument were also in his handwriting, the difference is but in the degree. A man may be more readily entrapped where he did not write the paper, for it is less certain that he knew its contents; yet the legal presumption, till rebutted, is in favour of fairness; and it coincides in this instance, with the presumption which the law deduces from the ordinary routine of business in the course of affairs. Though the alleged will was not in the handwriting of the testator, his signature was at least evidence to go to the jury.

Judgment reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1837–1838: 11873–1874: 11875–1876: 11895–1896: 11929–1930: 118372026peak 1837 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Yoe v. McCord74 Ill. 33 (1874)
  2. Frew v. Clarke80 Pa. 170 (1876)
  3. Sheer v. Sheer43 N.E. 334 (Ill. 1895)
  4. Ligo v. Dodson151 A. 694 (Pa. 1930)
  5. Wigle v. Wigle6 Watts 522 (1837)

Most recent

  1. Ligo v. Dodson151 A. 694 (Pa. 1930)
  2. Sheer v. Sheer43 N.E. 334 (Ill. 1895)
  3. Frew v. Clarke80 Pa. 170 (1876)
  4. Yoe v. McCord74 Ill. 33 (1874)
  5. Wigle v. Wigle6 Watts 522 (1837)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list