The statute sometimes requires the testator's signature to be acknowledged by him before witnesses, usually as an alternative to his actual signature of the will in their presence.71 Xo particular words of acknowledgment are necessary, it being sufficient that he indicates to the witnesses, either by words or acts, that the signature is his and the instrument his act.72 In at least three states, on a construction of the statute, it has been regarded as necessary that the witness see the signasuch clause, the signature is not at the end of the will, see Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul v. Kelly, 67 N. Y. 409. Contra, Ward v. Putnam, 119 Ky. 889, 85 S. W. 179.

67. In re Seaman, 146 Cal. 455, 106 Am St. Rep. 53, 80 Pac. 700; Morrow's Estate, 204 Pa. St. 479, 54 Atl. 313. See Sears v. Sears, 77 Ohio St. 104, 17 L. R. A. (X. S.) 353, 11 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1008.

68. Younger v. Duffie, 94 N. Y. 535, 46 Am. Rep. 156; In re Young's Will, 153 Wis. 337, 141 N. W. 226; Hallowell v. Hallo-well, 88 Ind. 251; Page, Wills, Sec. 183.

69. Post, Sec. 471.

70. In re Jacobson, 6 Dem. Sur. (N. Y.) 298; Chaplin, Wills, 229.

71. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 2642. See Limbach v. Bolin 169 Ky. 204, L. R. A. 1916D, 1059, 183 S. W. 495; Ludlow v. Ludlow, 36 N. J. Eq. 597; Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul v. Kelly, 67 N. Y. 409.

72. Thompson v. Karme, 268 111. 168, 108 N. E. 101 ; Turner v. Cook, 36 Ind. 129; Smith v. Holden, 58 Kan. 535, 50 Pac. 417; Nickerson v. Buck, 12 Cush. (Mass.) 332; In re Landy, 148 N. Y. 403; In re Herring, 1 X. C. 258, 67 S. E. 570; In re Claflin, 73 Vt. 129, 87 Am. St. Rep. 693.

Ture which the testator acknowledges to be his,73 while in others this is regarded as unnecessary, it being sufficient that the witness is told by the testator that the instrument has been signed by him, or that he otherwise indicates to the witness that such is the case.74-75

There is also, in some states, a requirement that the testator acknowledge, in the presence of witnesses, that the instrument is his last will and testament, this constituting what is known as the "publication" of the will.76 The publication, however, like the acknowledgment of the signature, need not be by express declaration, the testator's mere assent to a statement by another, or incidental reference to the instrument as his will, being sufficient, if it plainly informs the witnesses that the instrument is his will.77 In the absence of a statutory requirement, it is unnecessary that the testator inform the witnesses that the instrument is his will.78

73. In re Mackay's Will, 110 N. Y. 611, 1 L. R. A. 491, 6 Am. St. Rep. 409, 18 N. E. 433; Nunn v. Ehlert, 218 Mass. 471, 196 N. E. 163; Pope v. Rogers, 92 Conn. 248, 102 Atl. 583. See editorial notes, 28 Harv. Law Rev., 217; 27 Yale Law Journ., 847.

74-75. White v. Trustees of British Museum, 6 Bing. 310; Hobart v. Hobart, 154 111. 610, 45 Am. St. Rep. 151; Gould v. Chicago Theological Seminary, 189 111. 282, 59 N. E. 536; Dougherty v. Crandall, 168 Mich. 281, 134 N. W. 24.

76. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 2642; Bigelow, Wills, 47.

77. In re Cullberg's Estate, (Cal.), 146 Pac. 888; Harp v. Parr, 168 111. 459, 48 N. E. 113; Schierbaum v. Schemme, 157 Mo. 1, 80 Am. St. Rep. 604; In re Williams' Will, 50 Mont. 142,

145 Pac. 957; In re Ayers' Estate, 84 Neb. 16, 120 N. W. 491; Hildreth v. Marshall, 51 N. J. Eq. 241, 27 Atl. 465; Gilbert v. Knox, 52 N. Y. 125; In re Meurer, 44 Wis. 392, 28 Am. Rep.591.

78. White v. Trustees of British Museum, 6 Bing. 310; Moodie v. Reid, 7 Taunt. 355; Barnewall v. Murrell, 108 Ala. 366. 18 So. 831; Canada's Appeal from Probate, 47 Conn. 450; In re Barry's Will, 219 111. 391, 76 N. E. 219; Turner v. Cook, 36 Ind. 129; Scott v. Hawks, 107 Iowa, 723, 70 Am. St. Rep. 228; Osburn v. Cook, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 532, 59 Am. Dec. 155; Watson v. Pipes. 32 Miss. 451; In re Skinner, 40 Ore. 571, 67 Pac. 951; Dauphin County Historical Soc. v. Kelker, 226 Pa. St. 16, 134 Am. St. Rep. 1010; Long v. Michler, 133 Tenn. 51. 179 S. W. 477; In re Claflin's