the case to the Supreme Court, which reversed the favorable decision, and threw the estate into intestacy. They said the name must be written by the man himself to be his signature. If Catlett had written the heading, it might have answered; but not when his lawyer wrote it for him.* In two or three recent cases a lawsuit has arisen because the paper offered bore no title or peculiar phrases such as are usually esteemed appropriate to wills, but read like a deed. It commenced, "Know all men by these presents," and ended, "In witness whereof I have set my hand and seal." Such a paper, if never delivered, but found among the papers of the signer, after his death, cannot operate as a deed. When, however, the courts have been able to see that it was intended for a will, they have sustained it. Yet why leave one's estate in a lawsuit for want of writing in the paper that it is a will? A testator in West Virginia, who had made a formal and proper will, could think of nothing better to do than to accompany it with a sealed letter to his executors, containing further suggestions as to the disposal of his property. Of course, some one was found to raise a question whether this letter did not revoke or modify the will; and this question came to be one of the elements in a seven years' lawsuit. Years before he died, Samuel Rodgers, of Tennessee, made his own will in due form. He was a lawyer, was at one time chancellor, and might have known about wills. He left his property among three brothers, and the children of a fourth brother, deceased. The civil war arose. Samuel continued a stanch Union man, while these children of the fourth brother sided with secession. This greatly displeased their uncle, and he often said they should have none of his property. In his last *Catlett v. Catlett, 55 Mo. 330. † See Bright v. Adams, 51 Ga. 239; Re Diez, 50 N. Y. 88. sickness, he called his three living brothers around his bedside, directed them how he wished certain property disposed of, and said to them, "I wish you to take the balance of my property and divide it between you, without hard feelings." The three brothers insisted that this revoked the will, and gave them the property, to the exclusion of the nephews and nieces; but the Supreme Court decided otherwise.* Quite likely Peter Schwartzwelder meant to make a will when, as lately as 1875, and in the generally well-educated city of Hagerstown, in Maryland, he made out the paper which, after his death, his relatives found very carefully stowed away in his safe. It was headed, "What I owen is as follows." Then followed a curiously mispelled list of assets: "Brick house on the publick." "3 shears Waynsborro Turnpik company," and like items. Jumbled with these were what seemed meant for bequests: "Sarah Schwartzwelder, of Cuberlend, Myland, bother Isaac widdow one thousand or perhaps tu thousand dollars." "My houses to be sold, and the proceads paid over to the respictive parties named in my will, perhaps J. W. if gits dukg licker." Last of all was a clause, "I appoint for my administreatirs," giving two names, followed by the signature, Peter Schwartzwelder.t-And quite likely Mr. Patterson, of Millerstown, in Pennsylvania, meant to make a will. After he died, there was found among his papers a memorandum-book in which he had written, in pencil, six paragraphs, each of which seemed intended as a legacy. But they were not connected, were not entitled as a will, nor signed (except the last one), nor witnessed. They were nothing but separate entries in a memorandum-book. In both of these cases the courts refused to receive the paper as a will, because it bore no clear indications that it was intended * Rodgers v. Rodgers, 6 Heisk. 489. Lungren v. Schwartzwelder, 44 Md. 482. Patterson v. English, 71 Pa. St. 454. for one. Very likely it was. But it might have been only a memorandum of what the writer thought he would put in a will which he expected to make. A remarkable instance occurred in Pennsylvania. A husband and wife agreed to make wills in each other's favor. The wills were prepared, by which each gave his or her property to the other. But by accident or carelessness, the husband signed the wife's will, and the wife signed the husband's. The mistake was not discovered until after the death of the husband, when the wife desired to offer his will for probate. Of course, the paper he left could not be proved as his will, for it was only subscribed by her. The legislature passed a special act authorizing correction of the mistake. But the courts said that this could not be done. When the husband died without a will, his property vested at once, by law, in his heirs. For the legislature to allow a will to be made for the husband afterwards was, in effect, taking the property of the heirs away from them and giving it to the widow. This is forbidden by the Constitution.* Truly there are few matters upon which it is better worth while to consult a lawyer than that of making one's will. * Alter's Appeal, 67 Pa. St. 341; Matter of Alter, 7 Phil. (Pa.) 529. V. TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION. CHAPTER XXXVII. EXPRESS COMPANIES. THEY ARE COMMON CARRIERS. 66 THE business of express companies is of very recent origin and rapid development. Very soon after it attained some magnitude, the question arose whether they were common carriers." All readers probably understand that long-established rules of law impose upon common carriers a stringent responsi· bility for the safety of the merchandise in their charge. In recent years, however, they have been, in nearly all the States, allowed to diminish this responsibility by making special agreements with owners and shippers that they should not be liable for specified losses, or that they should not be required to pay beyond a stated value for the property if lost. The express companies contended, earnestly, that they ought not to be considered common carriers, but a new and distinct class of public servants. The railroad or steamboat in which their messengers travelled did (they contended) "the carrying." But the majority of decisions have been that they are responsible as common carriers. This has probably become the general rule throughout the country. It has led to a practice of their stipulating, in their receipts, for a more limited liability. แ VALUE ASKED, NOT GIVEN." When the inexperienced customer carries a parcel to the express office, the man behind the counter usually takes it, unceremoniously, and at once begins to write as fast as possible upon a printed blank. "How much is it worth?" he asks. The customer's mind is not made up beforehand upon this point; he does not know the precise value, nor, indeed, why the question is asked. While he ponders, the clerk hurriedly finishes the writing, dashes a piece of blotting-paper across the leaf, so as nearly to obliterate the written words, passes over the receipt, and reaches for the next parcel. But if the customer afterwards examines the paper closely, he will find upon it the talismanic words, "Value asked, not given;" and will see, moreover, that the document contains a clause in fine print declaring a special agreement between him and the company that he is not to demand more than fifty dollars in case the parcel is lost, unless he has disclosed its higher value and paid extra expressage. This method of doing business ought to be understood by the public, because the courts have held that it is, in effect, asking the man who sends the package if it is worth more than fifty dollars, and that the company has the right to know this, so that it may take adequate care of the parcel according to its value. If the agents of the company ask, even in this vague way, they have the right to be fairly informed. Several curious lawsuits have arisen on this point. In one case, the owner of a quantity of valuable jewelry wished to send it by express, but knew he would be charged high expressage if he disclosed its value. So he packed it shabbily, carried it to the express office, declined to answer the question as to value, and the agent took it at the cheap rate. It was lost, and when he sued for damages, the court held he could only recover the fifty dollars.*-The same *Southern Express Co. v. Everett, 37 Ga. 688. Earnest v. Express Co., 1 Woods, 537, was a very similar case. |