Rountree v. . Rountree

Stacy, C. J. On the hearing the matter was properly made to turn on whether the paper writing, which has been probated in common form as the last will and testament of Albert E. Rountree, deceased, is sufficient in character and substance to constitute his will. The trial court ruled in favor of its sufficiency on authority of Wise v. Short, 181 N. C., 320, 107 S. E., 134. With this we agree. A paper writing which bears upon its face, as the present instrument does, the animus testandi of the maker will be declared his will as a matter of law. In re Will of Rowland, 206 N. C., 456, 174 S. E., 284; In re Will of Ledford, 176 N. C., 610, 97 S. E., 482; Outlaw v. Hurdle, 46 N. C., 150. Indeed, when the testamentary intent appears on the face of a paper writing its character is fixed. In re Southerland, 188 N. C., 325, 124 S. E., 632. In the instant case the writer was in bad health. He wanted his kinsman, a lawyer and former judge, “to take charge” of his affairs “and arrange so Mable can carry on. Everything is left to her.” This is dispositive language. Spencer v. Spencer, 163 N. C., 83, 79 S. E., 291. The communication was addressed to one to whom the writer would naturally turn for counsel and advice in the settlement of his estate, but would hardly have asked “to take charge” of his affairs during his lifetime. He knew that after his death proper management would be necessary to preserve his estate, so he requested his kinsman, who was eminently capable of fulfilling the trust, to “arrange so Mable can carry on,” as everything is left to her. This means that at the writer’s going or demise “everything is left to her.” He undoubtedly intended the letter as his will. He did not mail it, but placed it in his safe among his valuable papers. “Please do this for me” was his final request. The writing is testamentary in character. In re Rowland, 202 N. C., 373, 162 S. E., 897. One definition of a will is that it is the duly expressed mind of a competent person as to what he would have done after his death with those matters and things over which he has the right of control and disposi *255 tion. Richardson v. Cheek, 212 N. C., 510. Tbe paper writing in question seems to meet tbis test. In re Will of Thompson, 196 N. C., 271, 145 S. E., 393; In re Johnson, 181 N. C., 303, 106 S. E., 841. Nothing was said in In re Bennett, 180 N. C., 5, 103 S. E., 917, or in In re Perry, 193 N. C., 397, 137 S. E., 145, wbicb militates against tbis position. Tbe judgment is approved. Affirmed.