Maul v. Williams
69 S.W.2d 1107 (1934)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A testamentary instrument intended as a holographic will is valid even if it contains words not in the testator's handwriting, provided those non-holographic words are not necessary to complete the instrument's form or meaning and their removal does not alter the sense of the document.
Facts:
- Margaret Voigt died on December 22, 1926.
- Before her death, Voigt wrote a document dated December 19, 1926, entirely in her own handwriting, detailing the disposition of her property.
- This document stated, 'I am making a check for Mr. Maul which will enable him to pay all my bills,' but also stated, 'Mr. Maul is to have the entire balance in Frost Bank & pay all debts out of same.'
- Voigt also wrote two other shorter, undated or separately dated notes in her handwriting, directing C. F. Maul to handle her belongings and business.
- A check on the Frost National Bank, payable to C. F. Maul, was also created; this check was partly printed and partly handwritten by Voigt, with the amount left blank.
Procedural Posture:
- C. F. Maul filed an application in the County Court of Bexar County (the probate court of first instance) to probate several instruments as the will of Margaret Voigt.
- The County Court denied the application to probate the will.
- Maul appealed the decision to the District Court of Bexar County.
- In the District Court, Maul (proponent) offered three handwritten papers as the will but did not offer the partly printed check as part of it.
- A jury in the District Court found that Voigt intended the check to be part of her will and that the will was the product of undue influence.
- The District Court entered a judgment denying probate of the will, and Maul (appellant) appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals at San Antonio.
- The Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the cause, holding it lacked jurisdiction because the record did not affirmatively show the District Court's jurisdiction.
- Maul (plaintiff in error) brought the case to the Commission of Appeals of Texas on a writ of error.
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 the reference to, or inclusion of, a partly printed document in an otherwise wholly handwritten testamentary instrument prevent it from being probated as a valid holographic will if the non-holographic material is not necessary to complete its meaning?
Opinions:
Majority - Critz, Judge
No, the reference to or inclusion of non-holographic material does not invalidate a holographic will if that material is non-essential surplusage. A testamentary instrument intended as a holographic will should be given effect, even if it contains words not in the testator's handwriting, if those words are not necessary to complete the instrument or affect its meaning. The court adopted this 'surplusage rule,' citing precedents like McMichael's Heirs v. Bankston. Here, the partly printed check is not essential to the will's meaning. The will itself provides a complete, alternative instruction for Maul to pay debts from the bank balance, rendering the reference to the check immaterial. Therefore, the non-holographic check can be disregarded, and the remaining document, being wholly written by the testator, qualifies for probate as a valid holographic will, assuming no undue influence.
Analysis:
This case establishes the 'surplusage rule' for holographic wills in Texas, providing crucial flexibility to the statutory 'wholly written' requirement. The decision prevents wills from being invalidated by trivial, non-essential elements that are not in the testator's handwriting. It shifts the judicial focus from strict, literal compliance to the materiality of the non-holographic text, thereby prioritizing the testator's intent. This precedent ensures that clear testamentary wishes are not defeated by minor technical flaws, affecting how courts will analyze similar instruments in the future.
