Davis v. Davis
45 S.W.2d 240 (1931)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Texas law, a will is validly attested if it is in writing, signed by the testator, and subscribed by two credible witnesses in the testator's presence. The statute does not require the testator to declare to the attesting witnesses that the instrument is a will, a practice known as 'publication'.
Facts:
- John Davis created a written will.
- Davis told a witness, R. N. Miller, that the instrument was his will and signed it in Miller's presence, who then subscribed as a witness.
- After Miller left, another witness, H. Manning, came in.
- Davis had Manning witness his signature on the same document, but did not tell Manning that the instrument was his will.
- Manning, who did not know he was signing a will, then subscribed his name to the instrument in Davis's presence.
- John Davis later passed away.
Procedural Posture:
- D. I. Prater filed an application to probate the will of John Davis in the county court of Jefferson County, Texas.
- Westley Davis, the son of the deceased, filed a contest challenging the validity of the will in the same court.
- The county court (court of first instance) held a hearing and ordered the will to be probated.
- Westley Davis (contestant) appealed the county court's order to the district court.
- The district court rendered a judgment also admitting the will to probate.
- Westley Davis (plaintiff in error) appealed the district court's judgment to the current appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a will fail to meet the statutory attestation requirements in Texas if the testator does not inform one of the attesting witnesses that the instrument is a will, and that witness does not know the nature of the document they are signing?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Quinn, J.
No. A will does not fail to meet Texas statutory requirements solely because an attesting witness was not informed of the instrument's testamentary character. The court reasoned that Texas law, specifically Article 8283, R.S. 1925, sets forth clear and exhaustive requirements for a valid will: it must be in writing, signed by the testator, and attested by two credible witnesses subscribing their names in the testator's presence. The statute does not include a requirement for 'publication,' which is the act of the testator declaring to the witnesses that the document is a will. The court concluded that it lacks the authority to superadd conditions or dispense with those enumerated by the legislature. Since all statutory requirements were met, the will was validly executed, regardless of the witness's lack of knowledge about the document's nature.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a strict constructionist approach to will execution formalities in Texas. By explicitly rejecting an implied requirement of 'publication,' the court prioritizes the literal text of the statute over traditions or requirements from other jurisdictions. This ruling simplifies the will execution process by removing a potential ground for contest, thereby making it easier to probate a will where the testator was private or failed to follow what might be considered best practice. It establishes a clear precedent that as long as the express statutory requirements are met, the will is valid, reducing uncertainty for testators and estate planners in Texas.
