TESTAMENTARY LAW 3491

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. 365; for the procedure when they
are dead or inaccessible, see sec. 368.

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 pre-
ceding 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 bequeath-
ing 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 effectj though will was executed prior to
act of 1884. See notes to sec. 340. 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. 339—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 paya-
ble to the survivor, see Metropolitan Bank v. Murphy, 82 Md. 320.

This section is subject to provisions of sec. 350—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. 339.) Remington v. Metropolitan Bank, 76 Md. 548; Western Mary-
land College v. McKinstry, 75 Md. 190; Hooper v. Creager, 84 Md. 252 (dissenting
opinion).

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

See notes to secs. 335, 353 and 362.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 333. 1912, sec. 324. 1904, sec. 318. 1888, sec. 311. 1798, ch. 101

sub-ch. 1, sec. 4. 1884, ch. 293.

337. No will in writing devising lands, tenements or hereditaments,
or bequeathing any goods, chattels or personal property of any kind, as
heretofore described, nor any clause thereof, shall be revocable otherwise
than by some other will or codicil in writing, or other writing declaring the
same, or by burning, cancelling, tearing or obliterating the same, by the
testator himself or in his presence, and by his direction and consent"; but
all devises and bequests so made shall remain and continue in force until
the same be destroyed by burning, cancelling, tearing or obliterating the
111