The witnesses as to the execution or publication of a will are required, usually, not only to witness the performance of these acts by testator, but also to sign their names upon the instrument "in the presence of" testator, and sometimes "in the presence of" each other.1 The question of what constitutes "presence," within this requirement, has been the subject of numerous decisions, of a somewhat conflicting character.2 The testator and the witnesses need not, it has been held, be in the same room, in order to render the signatures of the latter "in the presence of" the former, it being sufficient that he sees them, as through a door or window;3 and though the testator does not actually see the witnesses sign, this is

96. Gamble v. Butchee, 87 Tex. 643, 30 S. W. 861.

97. Winslow v. Kimball, 25 Me. 493; Jackson v. Durland, 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 314; Moore v. Mcwilliams, 3 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 10.

98. White v. Bower, 56 Colo. 575, 136 Pac. 1053; Fisher v. Spence, 150 111. 253, 37 N. E. 314, 41 Am. St. Rep. 314; In re Holt's Will, 56 Minn. 33, 45 Am. St. Rep. 434, 22 L. R. A. 481; Hodg-man v. Kittredge, 67 N. H. 254, 68 Am. St. Rep. 661; Giddings v. Turgeon, 58 Vt. 106, 41 Am. St.

Rep. 360, 37 N. E. 314.

99. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law Sec. 2650.

1. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 2644.

2. The cases are collected in note in 6 A. & E. Ann. Cas. at p. 414. See also editorial ..note, 14 Columbia Law Rev. 180.

3. Shires v. Glascock, 2 Salk. 688; Casson v. Dade, 1 Brown. Ch. 99; Ambre v. Weishaar, 74 111. 109; Riggs v. Riggs, 135 Mass. 238, 46 Am. Rep. 464; In re Meurer, 44 Wis. 392 28 Am. Rep. 591.

Usually regarded as taking place in his presence, if he is physically able, by shifting his gaze, to see the act of signing, provided at least he can do this without pain or danger to life.4 He must know what the witnesses are doing,5 and the signing is not in his presence if he is in such a state mentally as not to have such knowledge.6 "When the will is signed in the room in which testator is, there is, it seems, a presumption that the requirement is satisfied.7 The statutory requirement is not usually regarded as satisfied by an acknowledgment by the witness, in the testator's presence, of a signature previously affixed by him out of the testator's presence.8

The statute occasionally provides in express terms that the witnesses shall attest the will at the request of the testator, and even though the statute makes no reference to a request, it has been held that there must

4. 1 Jarman, Wills, 89 et seq; Bigelow, Wills, 55; Schouler, Wills, Sec.Sec. 340-342. See Gordon v. Gilmer, 141 Ga. 347, 80 S. E. 1007; Drury v. Connell, 177 111. 43, 52 N. E. 368; Raymond v. Wagner, 178 Mass. 315, 59 N. E. 811; Maynard v. Vinton, 59 Mich. 139; Watson v. Pipes, 32 Miss. 451; Jones v. ' Turk, 48 N. C. 202. Compare Mckee v. Mckee's Ex'r, 155 Ky. 738, 160 S. W. 261; Cunningham v. Cunningham, 80 Minn. 180, 81 Am. St. Rep. 256, 51 L. R. A. 642; Healey v. Bartlett, 73 N. H. 110, 6 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 413.

5. 1 Jarman, Wills, 89; Orn-dorff v. Hummer, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 619; Watson v. Pipes, 32 Miss. 451; Baldwin v. Baldwin, 81 Va. 405. But if testator is blind, he may take cognizance through his other senses of the signing by a witness. Riggs v. Riggs, 135 Mass. 238, 46 Am. Rep.

464; In re Allred's Will, 170 N. C. 153, 86 S. E. 1047; Ray v. Hill, 3 Strobh. (S. C.) 297.

6. Right v. Price, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 241; Chappel v. Trent, 90 Va. 849, 19 S. E. 314.

7. In re Howard, 51 B. Mon. (Ky.) 199, 17 Am. Dec. 40; Watson v. Pipes, 32 Miss. 451; Stewart v. Stewart, 56 N. J. Eq. 761, 57 N. J. Eq. 664; Neil v. Neil, 1 Leigh. (Va.) 6; Baldwin v. Baldwin, 81 Va. 405.

8. Calkins v. Calkins, 216 111. 458, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 393 and note, 108 Am. St. Rep. 233; Men-dell v. Dunbar, 169 Mass. 71 61 Am. St. Rep. 277; Den v. Milton, 12 N. J. L. 70; Ragland v. Huntingdon, 23 N. Car. 561; Pawtucket v. Ballou, 15 R. I. 58, 2 Am. St. Rep. 868. But see contra, Cook v. Winchester, 81 Mich. 581, 8 L. R. A. 822 and note; Sturdivant v. Birchett, 10 Gratt. (Va.) 67, 11 Gratt. 220.

Be a request.9 But the request need not be in express terms,10 and it appears to be sufficient that the circumstances are such as to show that, in attesting the will, the witnesses are acting in accordance with the testator's wish at the time,11 as when the request is made by a third person in the testator's presence and the latter's conduct indicates an acquiescence in such request.12 There is evidently no such assent on the part of testator if he is not in a condition to know what is being done.13

An "attestation clause," which consists of a recital, signed by the witnesses, of a compliance with the necessary requirements in execution of the will, should always be appended to the will, since it furnishes prima facie evidence of its due execution, and may serve to refresh the memory of the witnesses as to the circumstances of the execution. Such a clause is not however, necessary to the validity of the will, the statutes merely requiring the witnesses to sign their names upon the document, or, in some states, upon the document at the end or foot of the will itself.14

9. Gross v. Burneston, 91 Md. 383, 46 Atl. 993; Burney v. Allen, 125 N. C. 314, 74 Am. St. Rep. 637; Savage v. Bowen, 103 Va. 540, 49 S. E. 668; Skinner v. American Bible Soc, 92 Wis. 209, 65 N. W. 1037.

10. Rogers v. Diamond, 13 Ark. 474; Schierbaum v. Schem-me, 157 Mo. 1, 80 Am. St. Rep. 604; Coffin v. Coffin, 23 N. Y. 9, 80 Am. Dec. 235; Savage v. Bowen, 103 Va. 540, 49 S. E. 668; Skinner v. American Bible Soc. 92 Wis. 209, 65 N. W. 1037.

11. In re Mullin's Estate, 110 Cal. 252, 42 Pac. 645; Higgins v. Carlton, 28 Md. 115, 92 Am. Dec. 666; Gross v. Burneston, 91 Md. 383, 46 Atl. 993; In re Voorhis, 125 N. Y. 765, 26 N. E. 935;

Savage v. Bowen, 103 Va. 540, 49 S. E. 668.

12. Huff v. Huff, 41 Ga. 696; Harp v. Parr, 168 I11. 459, 48 N. E. 113; Conway v. Vizzard, 122 Ind. 266, 23 N. E. 771; In re Hull's Will, 117 Iowa, 738, 89 N. W. 979; Martin v. Bowdern, 158 Mo. 379, 59 S. W. 227; Matter of Nelson, 141 N. Y. 152, 36 N. E. 3; Burney v. Allen, 125 N. Car. 314, 74 Am. St. Rep. 637, 34 S. E. 500; In re Skinner, 40 Ore. 571. 63 Pac. 523, 67 Pac. 951.

13. Mcmechen v. Mcmechen, 17 W. Va. 683, 41 Am. Rep. 682.

14. 1 Jarman, Wills, (Bige-low's Ed.), 123; Schouler, Wills, Sec. 346.