contents of the instrument explained or read to him. Neither is it indispensable that he should see it signed by the testator as the latter may acknowledge his signature in the witnesses' presence and such witness is credible under this section" (Kessler's Estate, 221 Pa. 314).

By disinterested person the law is said to mean a person who has no pecuniary interest, whether as servant or employee in the church or charity receiving the devise (Paxson's Appeal, 221 Pa. 98; Kessler Estate, 221 Pa. 314; Jeanne's Estate, 228 Pa. 537; Stinson's Estate, 232 Pa. 218). The recent Act of June 7, 1911 (P. L. 702), further defines the term disinterested witnesses to mean "A disinterested witness being a witness not interested in such religious or charitable use, this act (meaning Act of April 26, 1855, P. L. 328), not being intended to apply to a witness interested in some other devise, bequest or gift in the same instrument." But this Act of June 7, 1911, has no retroactive effect and does not apply to a will executed before its date (Leech's Estate, 236 Pa. 58; Kelly's Estate, 236 Pa. 54).

While, therefore, subscribing witnesses are not necessary except in the instance set forth above, it is earnestly recommended that whenever a will be drawn to have two disinterested subscribing witnesses. This, because the law of some other states may require it, and the testator may have or may thereafter acquire title to land in such other states.

163. Form of Will.

No set form of words is essential to the validity of a will. No particular words are necessary. All that is required is that the intention of the testator be made clear. Yet, nevertheless, an inexperienced conveyancer ought to hesitate to draw a will unless it be of the simplest kind. Where the testator desires to create trusts and to give limited estates with remainders, it is better practice to consult an attorney. After all, it is not the province of a modern conveyancer to draw such a will and untold litigation may be avoided by his refusal to do so. However, a simple will, such as the form herein set forth, any one can draw without compunction:

LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT.

I, ABRAM JONES, residing at 1342 Blank Street, Philadelphia, Pa., being of sound and disposing mind, memory and under

standing, do make, publish and declare the following as and for my last will and testament, hereby revoking any and all wills by me at any time heretofore made.

First: I direct that all my just debts and funeral expenses be paid as soon as conveniently can be after my decease.

Second: I give, devise and bequeath to my son John my gold watch and chain.

Third: All of the rest, residue and remainder of my estate. whether real, personal or mixed, and wheresoever situate, I give, devise and bequeath unto my beloved wife Rebecca Jones, absolutely and forever.

Lastly: I hereby designate, constitute and appoint my said wife Rebecca Jones to be the executrix of this my last will and

testament.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal this first day of September, A. D. 1912.

ABRAM JONES. (Seal).

Signed, sealed, published and declared by the testator as and for his last will and testament in our presence, who, in his presence and in the presence of each other and at his request, have hereunto subscribed our names as witnesses.

JOHN DOE.
ADAM ROE.

In devising real estate, words of inheritance (i. e., heirs) need not be added to the name of the devisee, as in the case of a deed (See Par. 54 d). The words, "give, devise, and bequeath to John Smith absolutely and forever" will convey a fee. The real estate devised need not be described by metes and bounds. The number of the street in a city is sufficient. Any description which will identify the land intended to be given is enough. The residuary clause which is that clause beginning with the words, "All the rest, residue and remainder of my estate," etc., when drawn broadly as set forth in the foregoing form, will operate to pass a fee to any real estate and all personal properly not specifically devised or bequeathed before. The will speaks not from the time of its date but from the time of the testator's death. Thus, if the testator acquired real estate after the date of the will it would nevertheless pass to devisees in accordance with the terms of said will.

164. Codicil, Form of.

Sometimes it happens that a testator desires to change a single clause or bequest in his will without changing the rest of it. This is done by a writing executed similar to the will, which

recites its purpose and then makes the change. The codicil need not be in any particular set form of words. A convenient form is as follows:

CODICIL.

I, ABRAM JONES, of Philadelphia, Pa., having made my last will and testament dated the first day of September, A. D. 1912, whereby I bequeath to my son John Jones my gold watch and chain. Now, therefore, I do hereby revoke the said legacy as given by my said will and hereby give said gold watch and chain. to my son Philip Jones. In all other respects I do hereby ratify and confirm my said will.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 30th day of September, A. D. 1912.

ABRAM JONES. (Seal.)

Signed, sealed, published and declared by the said Abram Jones, as and for a codicil to his last will and testament in the presence of us, who, in his presence and in the presence of each other, have, at his request, subscribed our names as witnesses thereto.

The effect of a codicil is to confirm and republish the will as of the date of the codicil in all respects except as altered by the codicil (Davis' Estate, 27 Montg. [Pa.] 31; Gilmour's Estate, 154 Pa. 523; Kelly's Estate, 236 Pa. 54). A second codicil may be added after the first, and so on. The codicils should be kept with the will and are probated with it.

165. Widow's Right to Take Against the Will.

In

A father may disinherit his children by his will without making any provision for them whatever, and give his entire estate to strangers. But a husband cannot by will deprive his widow of the provision given by the law to the wife in lieu of dower. other words, the wife has a right to take against the will of her husband the same share of his property she would have received had he died intestate (See ante, Par. 134, Sec. 1, Clauses 1, 2). That is, if the husband dies leaving no children the wife may claim $5,000 and half of the remaining personal property and half of the real estate absolutely and for life, respectively. If children, one-third of the personal property absolutely and one-third of the real estate for life. This by reason of the Act of April 20, 1869, P. L. 77, which provides that if the widow elects to take against

the will of her husband she shall be entitled to such interest in the real estate of her deceased husband as the widow of decedents dying intestate are entitled to under the existing laws of this Commonwealth.*

Should the widow, however, accept the provision made by her husband in his will she is held to take it in lieu of her dower. So that now the widow may take her choice between what the husband leaves her in his will and what she would have received had he died intestate. By the Act of April 21, 1911 (P. L. 79), the surviving widow or husband must signify their election in writing to the executor or administrator of the will, which must be recorded at the recorder of deeds' office before any payment from the estate is made to the widow or surviving husband. Should the widow elect to take against her husband's will and her share would destroy the testator's testamentary scheme, then the whole will falls. If, however, she can be paid or given her share without effecting the rest of the devises or bequest then only that part containing the provision for her falls.

166. The Right of Surviving Husband to Take Against the Will. The husband likewise cannot be cut off by the will of his wife. He may take against the will his curtesy, i. e., the right to enjoy all her real estate for life. He has a further choice of the Act of May 4, 1855 (P. L. 430), which gives him the reciprocal right to take against his wife's will such share and interest in her real and personal estate as she can when surviving elect to take against his will in his estates. This means that he is entitled to take against his wife's will the $5,000 provided for her by the Act of April 9, 1909, P. L. 87, as set forth in the preceding paragraph (Moore's Estate, 50 Pa. Super. 76).†

*In the recent case of Guentheor's Estate, 235 Pa. 67, the words of this act "existing laws" of this Commonwealth were held by the Supreme Court to mean the act of 1833 as amended by the act of 1909, although probably at the time the legislature passed the act of 1869 they meant by "existing laws" the laws then existing, to wit, the act of 1833. The practical effect of Guentheor's Estate is that unless a man dies leaving children or has an estate over $5,000 in value he is barred from making a will.

†This case is the logical sequence of Guentheor's Estate (supra), and results in this curious condition; if a wife owning $5,000 worth of real

The husband, therefore, has three choices. First, he may take the provision of the will. Second, he may take his curtesy, that is, all of the real estate for life, or, Third, he can take against her will a share of both real and personal estate equal to what the law would give her in his estate against his will. His election must also be in writing and recorded, as in the case of the surviving wife (Act of April 21, 1911, P. L. 79; see Par. 165). Here also, as in the case of wife if the husband's election to take against the will operates to destroy the testamentary scheme, then the whole will falls.

167. Revocation of Wills. Express Revocation.

Since a will does not take effect until the death of testator it follows that it may be revoked at any time prior to testator's death. A will may be revoked either by express act of the testator, in which it is called an express revocation, or by operation of law, in which case it is termed an implied revocation. In Pennsylvania (Act of April 8, 1833, P. L. 249), provides that wills devising real estate shall not be revoked except by some other will or codicil in writing or other writing......declaring the same executed and proved like a will, or by burning, cancelling or obliterating or destroying the same by the testator himself or by some one in his presence and by his express direction. A will bequeathing personal properly only, must be revoked in the same way, unless a later nuncupative will be made. It is a good practice in drawing a will to put in a clause revoking all prior wills (See Form, Par. 163), although not strictly necessary since if the later will is totally inconsistent with the prior will it prevails and the prior will is revoked. If, however, not totally inconsistent the prior will is only revoked pro tanto, that is, only in such parts as are inconsistent with the last will. The writing revoking a will need not necessarily be a will, it can be any writing provided it is executed and proved like a will.

Revoking a will by cancellation or obliteration or destruction means cancelling in the popular sense. Thus scratching out or drawing a line through the signature (Evans' Appeal, 58 Pa. 238), writing the word cancelled or annulled across its face, or estate dies intestate and childless, the husband would under the intestate laws be entitled only to all the real estate for life. But if she made a will he could, under this decision, take against the will all the real estate absoJutely.