Cited by

In re Ludwig’s Estate, 79 Minn. 101, 106, 81 N.W.

[9] Tobin v. Haack, 79 Minn. 101 , 81 N.W.

261, 263 ; Tobin v. Haack, 79 Minn. 101, 106 , 81 N.W.

286 ; Tobin v. Haack, 79 Minn. 101 , 81 N.W.

In re Layman’s Will, 40 Minn. 371 , ; Tobin v. Haack, 79 Minn. 101 , .

The policy of this court is stated by Mr. Justice Brown in Carver v. Bagley, 79 Minn. 115 , , supra, thus: “ ‘It is the duty of such appellate court, of course, fully and fairly to consider such evidence, but so far only as is necessary to determine beyond question that it reasonably tends to support the findings; not that the trial court would not have been justified in making findings thereon in appellant’

Matter of Will of Layman, 40 Minn. 371 , ; Tobin v. Haack, 79 Minn. 101 , ; Kennedy v. Kelly, 123 Minn. 259 , .

The policy of this court is stated by Mr. Justice Brown in Carver v. Bagley, 79 Minn. 115 , , supra, thus: “It is the duty of such appellate court, of course, fully and fairly to consider such evidence, but so far only as is necessary to determine beyond question that it reasonably tends to support the findings; not that the trial court would not have been justified .in making findings thereon in appellant’s

Tobin v. Haack, 79 Minn. 101 , , furnishes an illustration.

(2 ed.) § 10214; Tobin v. Haack, 79 Minn. 101 , 81 N.W.

(2 ed.) § 10214; Tobin v. Haack, 79 Minn. 101 , ; Lott v. Lott, 174 Minn. 13 , .

Notwithstanding what is said in Tobin v. Haack, 79 Minn. 101 , , it does not require them to see the testator’s signature nor know that it has been affixed.

The case of Tobin v. Haack, 79 Minn. 101 , , is not in point.

Tobin v. Haack, 79 Minn. 101 , .

“To constitute a legal and valid attestation the testator must either sign the will in the presence of the witnesses, or acknowledge his signature to them, or in some other way clearly and unequivocally indicate to them that he has signed and executed the same.” Tobin v. Haack, 79 Minn. 101, 107 , 81 N W. 758, 761.

Such determination does not conflict with the rule in Tobin v. Haack, 79 Minn. 101 , .

See Tobin v. Haack, 79 Minn. 101 , .

The case of Tobin v. Haack, 79 Minn. 101 , , is not here in point, for the reason that in the case cited the testatrix did not in any manner indicate to the subscribing witnesses that she had signed the paper purporting to be her will or that it was her will.

Tobin v. Haack, 79 Minn. 101 , .

This case is clearly distinguishable from the recent decision of this court in Tobin v. Haack, 79 Minn. 101 , .