24:
having seen the execution, they returned into the office to attest it, and the carriage was...put back to the window of the office, through which, it was sworn by a person in the carriage, the testatrix might see what passed; immediately after the attestation, the witnesses took the will to her, and one of them delivered it to her, telling her they had attested it; upon which she folded it up and put it into her pocket. The Lord
Chancellor inclined very strongly to think the will well executed...
76:
of 1781, it was decided that the requirement was specifically that the parties were able to observe each other, and the fact that
Jenkins had been able to look in the window of the office from her coach was deemed sufficient to fulfil the requirements of law. The precedent has also been established
57:
English law at that time required that a testator's signature "shall be made or acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time". Jenkins's maidservant testified to the court that, specifically, "the moment the witnesses were signing the carriage horses
23:
Honora
Jenkins having a power, though covert, to make a writing in the nature of a will, ordered the will to be prepared, and went to her attorney’s office to execute it. Being asthmatical, and the office very hot, she retired to her carriage to execute the will, the witnesses attending her: after
132:
noted that "England's influential will-making traditions have stood still", and that there was an increasing pressure for the strictures surrounding will-making to be loosened. The 1837 act had been designed, in a time when few were literate, to ensure that witnesses were available to prevent the
125:
noted that the requirement for the testator to sign in the presence of witnesses "is inconsistent with rigorous self-isolation". Governmental advice was usually for individuals to remain a certain distance apart to restrict the spread of the virus; however, this also had implications for the
101:
has described the case as an "extreme example" of the line of sight doctrine, being specifically concerned with defining presence "with regard to the testator being present when the witnesses signed, rather than the witnesses being present when the testator signed".
49:. In this case, the testatrix, Honora Jenkins, visited her solicitors' office to sign her will, but it was later recorded how "being asthmatical and the office very hot, she retired to her carriage to execute the will", which was outside the office window.
89:
Denzil Lush judged that two parties could be deemed to be observant of each other even though the parties were in separate rooms, on the grounds that a glass door separated them and that this enabled a
133:
defrauding of testators. The rediscovery, however, of
Jenkins's case enabled individuals to witness wills without the concomitant proximity of attending a legal office: as a result of her case, said
161:
This contrasts, says
Rendell, with a situation in which witnesses and testator are in the same room, but the former do not know what the latter is doing, their attestation becomes invalidated.
58:
reared up, causing the carriage to move into a line of sight with the office window". Thus she believed that, had
Jenkins looked up at that moment, she would have been able to see the
408:
72:
On the grounds that she had not been in the same room as her witness at the point of signing, the will was challenged in court. However, in the following judgment,
315:
238:
332:
268:
29:
356:
187:
403:
377:
98:
382:
128:
59:
46:
311:
264:
234:
142:
110:
228:
119:, for example, wrote that "lockdown makes writing a will almost impossible". Likewise, the
361:
121:
397:
137:, it was confirmed that "witnessing a will through a window was legal", although the
95:
86:
145:
would potentially make wills signed and witnessed in this way open to challenge".
305:
285:
258:
206:
106:
141:
urged caution upon those who did: "relying on a precedent that pre-dates the
337:
115:
91:
42:
230:
Law, Literature, and the
Transmission of Culture in England, 1837–1925
287:
Report of Cases Argued and
Determined in the Supreme Court of Alabama
188:"Will-making and coronavirus: can wills be remotely witnessed?"
41:
is a case in
English law dealing with the witnessing of a
333:"Why lockdown makes writing a will almost impossible"
105:The case became of renewed relevance in the legal
113:following the introduction of lockdown policies.
378:"Where There's a Will in England, There's a Way"
257:Sawyer, Caroline; Spero, Miriam (15 May 2015).
21:
357:"Allow us to sign a will during the pandemic"
8:
310:. Macmillan International Higher Education.
222:
220:
218:
233:. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 50–.
32:, Casson v. Dade (1781) 1 Bro.C.C. 99
39:Honora Jenkins's last will and testament
350:
348:
299:
297:
290:. West Publishing Company. p. 164.
252:
250:
174:
154:
409:Wills and trusts in the United Kingdom
182:
180:
178:
7:
331:Ruth Jackson-Kirby (11 April 2020).
376:Benjamin Mueller (28 April 2020).
14:
211:. Whittlesey House. p. 227.
355:Chris Burrows (30 March 2020).
284:Alabama. Supreme Court (1932).
1:
260:Succession, Wills and Probate
227:Dr Cathrine O. Frank (2013).
205:Dudley Cammett Lunt (1932).
425:
304:Catherine Rendell (1996).
126:witnessing of testaments.
273:– via Google Books.
263:. Routledge. p. 85.
30:Lord Chancellor Thurlow
26:
208:The Road to the Law
16:Case in English law
383:The New York Times
135:The New York Times
129:The New York Times
94:between them. The
317:978-1-349-13510-3
307:Law of Succession
240:978-1-409-47595-8
143:French Revolution
111:COVID-19 pandemic
99:Catherine Rendell
37:The 1778 case of
416:
404:English case law
388:
387:
373:
367:
366:
352:
343:
342:
328:
322:
321:
301:
292:
291:
281:
275:
274:
254:
245:
244:
224:
213:
212:
202:
196:
195:
194:. 30 March 2020.
184:
162:
159:
33:
424:
423:
419:
418:
417:
415:
414:
413:
394:
393:
392:
391:
375:
374:
370:
362:Financial Times
354:
353:
346:
330:
329:
325:
318:
303:
302:
295:
283:
282:
278:
271:
256:
255:
248:
241:
226:
225:
216:
204:
203:
199:
186:
185:
176:
171:
166:
165:
160:
156:
151:
139:Financial Times
122:Financial Times
83:
70:
55:
35:
28:
17:
12:
11:
5:
422:
420:
412:
411:
406:
396:
395:
390:
389:
368:
344:
323:
316:
293:
276:
269:
246:
239:
214:
197:
173:
172:
170:
167:
164:
163:
153:
152:
150:
147:
82:
79:
74:Casson v. Dade
69:
67:Casson v. Dade
64:
54:
51:
20:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
421:
410:
407:
405:
402:
401:
399:
385:
384:
379:
372:
369:
364:
363:
358:
351:
349:
345:
340:
339:
334:
327:
324:
319:
313:
309:
308:
300:
298:
294:
289:
288:
280:
277:
272:
270:9781317479697
266:
262:
261:
253:
251:
247:
242:
236:
232:
231:
223:
221:
219:
215:
210:
209:
201:
198:
193:
189:
183:
181:
179:
175:
168:
158:
155:
148:
146:
144:
140:
136:
131:
130:
124:
123:
118:
117:
112:
108:
103:
100:
97:
96:legal scholar
93:
92:line of sight
88:
80:
78:
75:
68:
65:
63:
61:
52:
50:
48:
44:
40:
34:
31:
25:
19:
381:
371:
360:
336:
326:
306:
286:
279:
259:
229:
207:
200:
191:
157:
138:
134:
127:
120:
114:
104:
87:Senior Judge
84:
81:21st century
73:
71:
66:
62:take place.
56:
38:
36:
27:
22:
18:
109:during the
107:Anglosphere
77:in US law.
60:attestation
398:Categories
169:References
53:Background
338:MoneyWeek
116:MoneyWeek
85:In 2005,
192:Lexology
43:testator
314:
267:
237:
312:ISBN
265:ISBN
235:ISBN
149:Note
47:will
45:'s
400::
380:.
359:.
347:^
335:.
296:^
249:^
217:^
190:.
177:^
386:.
365:.
341:.
320:.
243:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.