For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the order appealed from is reversed. II. The Requisites of are Prescribed by Statute, 23. III. What Writings Amount to, 24. IV. Requisites Peculiar to Holographic Wills. a. Construction of Statutes Providing for, 25. b. Must be Wholly in the Handwriting of the Testator, 26. c. The Dating. 1. Necessity for, 28. 2. Abbreviations in the Date, 28. 3. Essential Elements of a Dating, 28. 4. The Place Where the Date must be Written, 29. d. The Signature. 1. Necessity for, 29. 2. What Constitutes, 29. 3. The Place for the Signature, 30. e. Witnessing and Attesting. 1. Necessity for, 31. 2. Unsigned Clause of Attestation, 32. V. The Place Where the Will was Lodged or Found, 33. VI. Proving, 34. I. Definition. A holographic will is one written entirely by the hand of the testator: Bouvier's Law Dictionary, title "Holograph'; Rapalje & Lawrence's Law Dictionary, title "Holograph"; Neer v. Cowhick, 4 Wyo. 49, 31 Pac. 862, 18 L. R. A. 588; note to Lagrave v. Merle, 52 Am. Dec. 591. Where, however, there is a codicil, the will and the codicil may be considered separately, and one be holographic and the other not. Hence, to a will not in the handwriting of the testator, but duly witnessed and attested, there may be a codicil wholly in his handwriting, and therefore, though not witnessed, entitled to admission to probate as a holographic will: In re Soher, 78 Cal. 477, 21 Pac. 8. Though every holographic will is in the handwriting of the testator and by him subscribed, it is obvious that not every paper subscribed and wholly written by the same person is a holographic will. It must, except in so far as the statute provides otherwise, possess the same requisites as other wills. It must have a testamentary purpose sufficiently expressed and be executed by one having testamentary capacity, acting without coercion, fraud or undue influence. It is not the purpose of this note, however, to discuss the subject of wills generally, nor of holographic wills in the respects in which they resemble or are subject to the same rules as other wills, but rather to point out the features peculiar to the former. II. The Requisites of are Prescribed by Statute. A paper is not necessarily entitled to probate because it is testamentary in scope and wholly written by the testator and attested by his signature, for the whole subject of wills is under statutory control, and every paper presented as a will, whether holographic or not, must conform to the requisites of the statute. At the common law and by the earliest statutes upon the subject of wills witnesses thereto were not required, and a holographic will must have been good, though not witnessed, because it would have been equally good though not holographic, provided it had been executed by the testator. The necessity for witnesses resulted from the statute of 29 Charles II, chapter 3, relating to frauds and perjuries. It is believed that in each of the states of this Union statutes have been enacted without compliance with which no will is entitled to admission to probate or to otherwise be given effect as a will. Such being the case, the requisites of holographic wills must be found in those statutes, and where they prescribe any general rule respecting the execution and attestation of wills, such rule is equally applicable to holographic wills, and the fact that a will is wholly in the handwriting of the testator does not exempt it from the rule. Thus, if a statute declares that all wills to be valid must be in writing, witnessed by two competent witnesses, and signed by the testator or by some person in his presence and by his direction, and that a holographic will may be proved in the same manner that other private writings are proved, wills of the latter class are still subject to the provision requiring witnesses: Neer v. Cowhick, 4 Wyo. 49, 31 Pac. 862, 18 L. R. A. 588. So a statute may impose limitations upon holographic which do not apply to other wills, or may provide that persons competent to make the latter are not competent to make the former. Thus, if a statute declares that a married woman may dispose of her separate estate by will without the consent of her husband, and may alter or revoke the will as if she were single, and that her will must be attested, witnessed and proved in like manner as are other wills, she cannot make a holographic will, though the same statute recognizes the general right to make such wills: Scott v. Harkness, 6 Idaho, 736, 59 Pac. 556. The various statutes recognizing holographic wills agree in requiring them to be subscribed and wholly written by the testator. Most of such statutes require such wills to be also dated by him, and omit the requirement of attestation by witnesses. By the provisions of some of the statutes such wills must be found among the valuable papers or effects of the deceased, or be lodged in the hands of another for safekeeping. In a few, witnesses are not dispensed with. In others, provision is made for the manner of proving that the writing is that of the testator and the number of witnesses who must testify to that fact. 1 III. What Writings Amount to. Provided it conforms to the statutory requisites in other respects, any writing or combination of writings (Estate of Skerrett, 67 Cal. 585, 8 Pac. 181) may constitute a holographic will, if it expresses, however informally, a testamentary purpose in language sufficiently clear to be understood. Sums bequeathed may be stated in figures as well as in words: Succession of Vanhille, 49 La. Ann. 107, 62 Am. St. Rep. 642, 21 South. 191. "To the validity of a will the law does not require it should assume any particular form, or that any technically appropriate language should be used therein, if the intention of the maker is disclosed and the distribution of his property at his death is designated." Hence, a paper which commences with a synopsis of some of the principal events of the writer's life and a statement of property acquired by him, and that Charlie Webster has helped him to improve it, and concluding, "I have requested my executors to give a clear deed for the property after my death to Maggie, his wife, and Charlie, ," is entitled to admission to probate as the will of the writer. The fact that he labored under a mistaken impression that it was necessary for his executors to make a conveyance does not prevent the writing from operating as his will: Webster v. Lowe, 107 Ky. 293, 53 S. W. 1030. It will be seen from this that it is not necessary for the writer to know that the paper which he writes will amount to a will or otherwise fully accomplish his purposes. It is sufficient that he manifests his wish that, on his death, his property, or some part of it, shall go to another person by him designated: Outlaw v. Hurdle, 1 Jones (46 N. C.), 150; Estate of Knox, 131 Pa. St. 220, 17 Am. St. Rep. 798, 18 Atl. 1021, 6 L. R. A. 353. Nor is it necessary that such designation be so complete that parol evidence is not necessary to make it understood. Thus, the words, "Dear old Nance: I wish to give you my watch, two shawls, and also five thousand dollars," properly dated and subscribed by the writer, is a holographic will, and parol evidence is admissible to prove who is the person whom he designated as "Old Nance": Clarke v. Ransom, 50 Cal. 595. It is sufficient that the will merely states that the person named therein is the testator's heir if it is also indorsed in his handwriting as his will: Succession of Ehrenberg, 21 La. Ann. 280, 99 Am. Dec. 729. A will may take the form of a direction to the testator's executors to pay the beneficiaries a sum specified at a future designated date: Pena v. Cities of New Orleans and Baltimore, 13 La. Ann. 86, 71 Am. Dec. 506. A holographic will may be contained in, or be a part of, a letter written by the testator to the beneficiary or to another: Buffington v. Thomas (Miss.), 36 South. 1039; Barney v. Hayes, 11 Mont. 571, 28 Am. St. Rep. 495, 29 Pac. 282; Alston v. Davis, 118 N. C. 202, 24 S. E. 15; or may consist of an entry in the testator's diary: Reagan v. Stanley, 11 Lea, 316. Whether directions for the writing of a will may of themselves constitute a holographic will is not free from doubt. A paper en titled, "Directions how I want my will wrote," was denied admission to probate in Virginia, but the reasons for such denial were not stated by the court, and, as they may have related to the uncertainty of the directions thus referred to and the impossibility of ascertaining from them, even if so admitted, what disposition was made of the property therein referred to, the case can hardly be regarded as authority on one side or the other of the question: Hocker v. Hocker, 4 Gratt. 277. In Barney v. Hayes, 11 Mont. 99, 571, 28 Am. St. Rep. 495, 29 Pac. 282, 384, it appeared that the testator, after having executed a will which was duly attested by witnesses, married, and subsequently wrote to his attorneys referring to his marriage, and stating, "Now, what I want is for you to change my will so that she will be entitled to all that belongs to her as my wife. I am in very poor health and would like this attended to as soon as convenient." Application was made for the admission to probate of this letter as a codicil to the pre-existing will. It was conceded that the marriage had revoked the original will, but that if the letter could be admitted as a codicil, it republished the will, and that the will and codicil together constitute the last will and testament of the decedent. “The whole gist of the case," said the court, "therefore, is whether said letter was a codicil; that is, whether it was testamentary in character. The court submitted to the jury a great number of questions, which seemed to have included all matters of fact in the case. The court also required the jury to determine whether said letter was a codicil. The jury said it was." The trial court set aside this finding and held that the letter was not a codicil. Its action was reversed upon appeal, the appellate court holding that the words contained in the letter "disclosed an animus testandi," that the reasonable construction of the letter was that the testator wished his wife to have a certain portion of his estate, and that no one could read the letter and be in any doubt as to what the decedent intended should be the disposition of his property to his wife, and that such intention being clear, the intent must not be ignored because the language was not technical: Barney v. Hayes, 11 Mont. 99, 571, 28 Am. St. Rep. 495, 29 Pac. 282, 384. IV. Requisites Peculiar to Holographic Wills. a. Construction of Statutes Providing for.-It must be remembered, in the first instance, when we speak of requisites peculiar to holographic wills, we refer only to such wills as are admissible to probate only on the ground that they are holographic. As already suggested, a will, in addition to being signed by the testator and wholly in his handwriting, may also have been executed with all the formalities required of wills not holographic. In such a case, it may be admitted to probate without for any purpose considering the fact that it is wholly in the testator's handwriting, and it is not subject to the statutory provisions peculiarly applicable to holo graphic wills. These provisions, when properly applicable, are quite strictly enforced by the courts. The omission of any of them will not be overlooked on the ground that it is beyond question that the paper was executed by the decedent as his will while he possessed abundant testamentary capacity and was free from fraud, constraint, or undue influence, and there is no question of his testamentary purpose and no obstacle to carrying it into effect had his will been executed in the manner prescribed by the statute: Estate of Rand, 61 Cal. 468, 44 Am. Rep. 555; Succession of Armant, 43 La. Ann. 310, 26 Am. St. Rep. 183, 9 South. 50; Baker v. Brown, 83 Miss. 793, 36 South. 539; Warwick v. Warwick, 86 Va. 602, 10 S. E. 843, 6 L. R. A. 795. When, on the other hand, the paper offered has been executed in compliance with all the requisites imposed by the statutes, the courts will construe it on the same principles applicable to other wills, by seeking to ascertain, though its language is untechnical and ungrammatical, or words are omitted from it, what was the intention of the testator, and by giving effect to that intention, whenever lawful, and thus capable of ascertainment. Hence the words, "Crolldepdro, february 3, 1892, this is to serifey that ie levet to mey wife Real and persnal and she to dispose for them as she wis," may be construed as if it had been written, "Corral de Piedra, February 3, 1892. This is to certify that I leave to my wife (my) real and personal (property), and she to dispose of them as she wishes': Mitchell v. Donohue, 100 Cal. 202, 38 Am. St. Rep. 279, 34 Pac. 614. Though certain words taken by themselves have no apparent connection with other portions of the will, "the testatrix must be deemed to have written them with the intention that some effect should be given them, and that intention, so far as it can be gathered from the will itself and the circumstances under which it is executed, is to be ascertained by the court and effect given thereto accordingly. The order in which the words of a will are written is not determinative of the testator's intention, and under a well-recognized rule this order will be transposed if thereby the intention of the testator can be ascertained. So, too, a word that has been manifestly omitted and is essential to an understanding of the intention of the testator will be supplied': In re Stratton, 112 Cal. 513, 44 Pac. 1028. b. Must be Wholly in the Handwriting of the Testator.-A will cannot be holographic if any part of it is not in the handwriting of the testator. The material with which it is written is immaterial. It may be in pencil as well as in ink: Philbrick's Heirs v. Spangler, 15 La. Ann. 46; Estate of Knox, 131 Pa. St. 220, 17 Am. St. Rep. 798, 18 Atl. 1021, 6 L. R. A. 353. Whether in ink or in pencil, every part of it must be in the testator's handwriting. Hence, if a printed form has been used, so that the paper consists partly of such printing and partly of clauses written by the testator, no part of it can admitted to probate as his holographic will: In re Rand's Estate, |