2988 ARTICLE 93.

A will is duly attested where another person signs the name of the witness, the
latter making his mark. Appeal of Reaver's Executors, 96 Md. 736.

The word " credible " defined. An executor who is also appointed guardian of
testator's children is a competent witness. Estep v. Morris, 38 Md. 423; Higgins v.
Carlton, 28 Md. 140. And see Leitch v. Leitch, 114 Md. 336.

A paper written and signed by deceased, witnessed by a physician and delivered
by former just prior to his death to a third party in presence of various persons who
knew that deceased was attempting to make a will, held invalid because of a
failure to comply with this section. Brengle v. Tucker, 114 Md. 597.

A memorandum indorsed " for the instruction of my executors," written in testa-
tor's handwriting two days after execution of a will but not attested, cannot operate,
as a will. Such a paper could not be incorporated into will by reference because it
was not in existence when will was executed. Chase v. Stockett, 72 Md. 245.

As to the examination of witnesses to will, see sec. 360; for the procedure when
they are dead or inaccessible, see sec. 363.

Generally.

Although parol evidence has not been excepted to as provided by art. 5, sec. 40,
it will not be given effect so as practically to make a will for a testator contrary to
this section. Lowe v. Whitridge, 105 Md. 189.

A will held to have been executed and attested in conformity with this and the
preceding section. Buchanan v. Turner, 26 Md. 4.

For a case involving the signature of a testator by his mark with the assistance of
one of the subscribing witnesses, see Higgins v. Carlton, 28 Md. 122.

Sec. 2 of act of 1884, ch. 293, saved from the operation of that act all wills be-
queathing only personal property executed before August 1, 1884, but this section
was omitted from Code of 1888, and hence a will of personal property, not executed
in accordance with requirements of act of 1884, was held not to be entitled to
probate where the testatrix died after Code of 1888 went into effect, though will
was executed prior to act of 1884. See notes to sec. 335. Bartlett v. Ligon, 135
Md. 625.

Where a will is written by testator, contains his name and is duly witnessed,
it may be probated although he does not sign it. Higdon v. Thomas, 1 H. & G.
139, affirmed. Ex parte Cardoza, 135 Md. 409.

Validity of holographic will without witnesses not passed on, since it was probated
and no appeal taken; collateral attack. Forbes v. Littell, 138 Md. 216.

Form of issues relative to the execution and attestation of will, prescribed. Tatem
v. Wright, 139 Md. 28.

An attempt to designate in a savings bank-book who should be entitled to money
deposited after death of depositor, held invalid under this section. The act of 1892,
ch. 169—see sec. 334—does not apply to a testator dying prior to its adoption. Rem-
ington v. Metropolitan Bank, 76 Md. 548. And as to a joint savings bank account
payable to the survivor, see Metropolitan Bank v. Murphy, 82 Md. 320.

This section is subject to provisions of sec. 344—see notes thereto. History of this
section. The use of the word " bequest" in first line of this section referred to as
showing that that word may refer to real estate. Lindsay v. Wilson, 103 Md. 265.

The act of 1798, ch. 101, sub-ch. 1, sec. 4, did not embrace leasehold property.
Origin of this section. What is included in "lands and tenements"? Devecmon v.
Devecmon, 43 Md. 346. And see Holzman v. Wager, 114 Md. 322.

The fact that a paper cannot operate as a will because not properly witnessed
does not affect question of whether paper constitutes a valid contract. Cover v.
Stem, 67 Md. 453.

The act of 1884, ch. 293, placed execution of wills of real estate and personal prop-
erty on same footing. Tabler v. Tabler, 62 Md. 615. And see Brengle v. Tucker,
114 Md. 602.

History of this section as enacted by act of 1884, ch. 293, and as changed by Code
of 1888. (See sec. 334.) Remington v. Metropolitan Bank, 76 Md. 548; Western
Maryland College v. McKinstry, 75 Md. 190; Hooper v. Creager, 84 Md. 252 (dis-
senting opinion).

Cited but not construed in Campbell v. Porter, 162 U. S. 47.

See notes to secs. 331, 348 and 357.

An. Code, sec. 324. 1904, sec. 318. 1888, sec. 311. 1798, ch. 101, sub-ch. 1, sec. 4.

1884, ch. 293.

333. No will in writing devising lands, tenements or hereditaments,
or bequeathing any goods, chattels or personal property of any kind, as