Walton A. Doolittle, Attorney at Law, regarded the Photostat Bertha Cool had handed him.
“As I understand it, Mrs. Cool, you want to know the legal effect of a partial forgery.”
“That’s right.”
Doolittle took up the first page of the will. “Let us suppose that this is genuine,” he said, “and that the second page containing the purported signature and the attestation clause is a forgery.”
“No chance of that,” Bertha said.
“I understand but I am going to consider the problem in order. Now, a will may be revoked in any one of several ways. One of these ways is by destruction of the will on the part of the testator. But bear in mind, Mrs. Cool, that an unauthorized destruction by any other person does not invalidate the will. Therefore, let us assume that the first page of this will is genuine and that the second page is a forgery. In other words, the first page has been taken from a genuine will, the remaining portions of which have been destroyed; and a forged and fraudulent second page has been added.”
“You’re going all the way around your elbow to get to your thumb,” Bertha said. “You’re taking the same thing I told you and wrapping it up in a lot of words.”
“I want to be certain that you understand the situation,” Doolittle said.
“I do.”
“Under those circumstances,” Doolittle went on, “the will has been destroyed, but its destruction was not a revocation. Therefore, the entire contents of the will could be proved by independent, oral evidence if we could find such evidence. Now, if the first page of the will is genuine, it is the best proof of the contents of the first page of the destroyed will. We wouldn’t need to care what was in the rest of the will, once we prove the first page genuine.”
“In other words, Christopher Milbers gets ten grand. Is that it?”
“Exactly.”
“All right, let’s get to the point. Suppose the first page is a forgery and the second page is genuine. That’s more apt to be the case.”
“Under those circumstances, the same rule of law applies. The destruction of a portion of the will does not constitute a partial revocation. The contents of the first page of the will could then be proven by independent, oral evidence, or, as we say in the law, by parol evidence.”
“And if, in the first page of that will Christopher Milbers got a hundred thousand dollars instead of ten thousand dollars, he could still collect it?”
“If he could prove that that was the original will.”
Bertha said, “Suppose we can prove that the first page has been submitted, but can’t prove what was on the original first page?”
“Under those circumstances, in my opinion, the entire will would be refused probate, inasmuch as a court would have no way on earth of knowing what percentage of the testator’s property should be affected by the residuary clause. It is quite possible that the first page of the will might have contained a dozen specific bequests.”
“And if the will wasn’t admitted to probate?” Bertha asked.
“Then any prior will would be effective, unless it appeared that the testator had, by some positive action, endeavored to revoke that will. It is quite possible that you could get sufficient proof of a revocation without getting sufficient proof of the contents of the genuine will which he made last.”
“Then what?” Bertha asked.
“Under those circumstances, inasmuch as there is no will admitted to probate, the effect would be the same as though Mr. Harlow Milbers had died intestate, except as to the ten thousand dollar bequest to Josephine Dell — which is the only specific bequest for a fixed amount contained on the second page.”
“And Christopher would get all the property except that ten thousand?”
“If he is the sole surviving relative and, therefore, the only heir at law, yes.”
“And Nettie Cranning, Eva Hanberry, and Paul Hanberry wouldn’t get a nickel?”
“No.”
“Not even if they can prove that that page of the will giving them everything is absolutely genuine?”
“That isn’t the question, Mrs. Cool. By the second page of that will, they are given not a specific amount, but each is given an undivided one-third interest in the property passing by the residuary clause. It isn’t as though they were given, for example, ten thousand dollars apiece. They are given the residue of the estate. Unless the court can determine how much of the estate was specifically mentioned in other bequests on the first page, the court can’t determine the intention of the testator as to the amount of the residue. The testator might have given away half a million in the first page — or only one dollar.”
Bertha Cool pushed back her chair and got to her feet. “That’s the law?” she asked.
“That’s my opinion, or rather, it’s my interpretation of the law,” Doolittle said. “It’s an interesting point. There could be a very nice lawsuit over it.”
“Well,” Bertha told him, “something may come of this. If it does, I’ll see that you get the business.”
Doolittle’s smile was frosty. “So many of my clients tell me that,” he said, “that I have found it’s better to put it the other way, Mrs. Cool. My fee for consultation will be twenty-five dollars; then if, as you surmise, anything comes of it, that twenty-five dollars will be credited on whatever additional fee is charged.”
Bertha Cool sighed and opened her purse. “Everybody seems to collect money in this case except me.”