In Re Will of Rowland

' Stacy, C. J.. The paper-writing in question was offered for probate in common form without citation to those in interest “to see proceedings.” Redmond v. Collins, 15 N. C., 430, 27 Am. Dec., 208, and note. This is permissible under our practice, C. S., 4139 at seq., and when thus probated in common form, even though the proceedings be ex piarte, such record and probate is made conclusive as evidence of the validity of the will, until it is vacated on appeal or declared void by a compétent tribunal, C. S., 4145, and it is not thereafter subject to collateral attack. Mills v. Mills, 195 N. C., 595, 143 S. E., 130; Edwards v. White, 180 N. C., 55, 103 S. E., 901; Starnes v. Thompson, 173 N. C., 466, 92 S. E., 259; Moore v. Moore, 198 N. C., 510. It is further provided by statute, C. S., 4158 et seq., that at the time of the application for probate of any will, and the probate thereof in common form, or at any time within seven years thereafter, with certain additional features in favor of persons under disability, any person entitled under such will, or interested in the estate, may appear in person or by attorney before the clerk of the Superior Court and enter a caveat to the probate of such will. In re Little, 187 N. C., 177, 121 S. E., 453. It is immaterial whether those appearing and protesting *375 call themselves interveners, objectors, or caveators. Collins v. Collins, 125 N. C., 98, 34 S. E., 195; Randolph v. Hughes, 89 N. C., 428; Edwards v. Edwards, 25 N. C., 82; Redmond v. Collins, supra; Dickenson v. Stewart, 5 N. C., 99. If in reality they are opposed to the probate of the will, they thereby place themselves in opposition to the pro-pounders, and are entitled to the benefit of the statutes dealing with caveats. In re Little, supra; Mills v. Mills, supra. Speaking to the subject in In re Will of Chisman, 175 N. C., 420, 95 S. E., 769, Brown, J., delivering the opinion of the Court, said: “The probate of a will in common form is an ex parte proceeding, and no one interested is before the clerk except the propounders and witnesses. When an issue of devisavit vel non is raised by caveat, it is tried in the Superior Court in term by a jury. Upon’ such trial the propounder carries the-burden of proof to establish the’formal execution of the will. This he must do by proving the will per testes in solemn form.” Whether the paper-writing in question is the valid will of H. L. Eow-land, deceased, we express no opinion, but there was error in holding, as a matter of law, that it is not sufficient in form to constitute a will. In re Johnson, 181 N. C., 303, 106 S. E., 841; Alexander v. Johnston, 171 N. C., 468, 88 S. E., 785. It is dispositive on its face, and the name of the alleged testator is inserted therein, in his own handwriting, followed by the words: “this being my will.” C. S., 4131; In re Westfeldt, 188 N. C., 702, 125 S. E., 531; In re Harrison, 183 N. C., 457, 111 S. E., 867; In re Bermett, 180 N. C., 5, 103 S. E., 917. Let the cause be remanded for further proceedings, not inconsistent herewith, and according to the usual- course and practice in such eases. Error.