ENPages
1
Mr AD. Payne`s case May 26 1860
Qu. 1. Is Exhibit No 1 testamentary in its character, & revoked by no. 3?
I can see no ground to regard it as testamentary except to [tur?] as the suggestion offended may [?] sertained by Ruth v Owens 2 Rand. 572. There the bonds were [en'd?] by [direct?] [?th] before his death. the [same?} [him?] [w?] given to the obligees respectively [one] the same as there named in the [l?] and it was in [suwf?] that when he en'd the the notes bonds (almost 3 days before his death), he declared that it was to reduce the legacies. The [power?] of husband to bar his wife's claims by deed in his life-time, will not be [centivated?] after li[?] [?] v [Colsin?] 5 [?] 42; 6 [Grat?] 594, Gentey v Bailey.
Qu. 2. If not testamentary was the execution of Exhibit no 1, as a deed or assignment, complete & perfect?
If it is not, it must be because it was not duly signed, sealed, or delivered. That it was signed and sealed is sufficiently demonstrated by the acknowledgment before the [justice?]. The only enquiry open is conceived to be, was it duly delivered? The acknowledgment before the justice is admitted to be cogent evidence of a delivery, although not [?].
2
if the deed be delivered to the (?) are in the (?) , before
3
This page is not transcribed, please help transcribe this page
4
This page is not transcribed, please help transcribe this page