to dispose of one's property by will and the mode by which it may be exercised are matters under legislative control, and the mode prescribed by the statute must be followed, or there is no will. "For the purpose of determining whether a will had been properly executed, the intention of the testator in executing it is entitled to no consideration. For that purpose the court can consider only the intention of the legislature as expressed in the language of the statute, and whether the will as presented shows a compliance with the statute." (Estate of Seaman, 146 Cal. 460, [106 Am. St. Rep. 53, 2 Ann. Cas. 726, 80 Pac. 701]; Estate of Walker, 110 Cal. 391, [52 Am. St. Rep. 104, 30 L. R. A. 460, 42 Pac. 815].) If the decedent had used a printed form of will, filled the blank spaces as she desired, and had duly signed it, without attesting witnesses, the document would show her testamentary intentions as satisfactorily as the document she here prepared, but it would not have been a valid will. (Estate of Billings, 64 Cal. 427, [1 Pac. 701].) The act of signing is essential. An intention proven by other means will not serve the purpose.

There is no force in the argument that the indorsement on the envelope can be treated as a part of the document inclosed, as if it were an additional page attached thereto to give room for the signature. The circumstances are utterly inconsistent with the idea that the indorsement was made for any such purpose. They show that it constituted no part of the paper designated as "My Will" within the sealed envelope. (Warwick v. Warwick, 86 Va. 596, [6 L. R. A. 775, 10 S. E. 843].)

It is claimed that the decisions in Estate of Stratton, 112 Cal. 513, [44 Pac. 1028], and Estate of Camp, 134 Cal. 233, [66 Pac. 227], are opposed to the foregoing conclusions. In Estate of Stratton the olographic will was duly signed at the end, but below the signature were the words, "My husband Thomas Stratton." Discussing the effect of these words as part of the document, the court held that they were intended to name the husband as a legatee; that they were merely displaced by the testator, and should be read as though written at the beginning or end of the last clause, in which the legatee was designated only by the pronoun "he." In this discussion the court said: "The statute does not require that an olographic will shall be 'subscribed by the testator at the end thereof.' It is sufficient that it be 'signed' by him and this signing may be at the beginning or in any part of the docu

ment," citing Estate of Walker, 110 Cal. 391, [52 Am. St. Rep. 104, 30 L. R. A. 460, 42 Pac. 815].

In Estate of Camp, proof that the final clause of an olographic will, including the signature of the testator at the end thereof, had been torn off and destroyed after the testator's death was duly made by two credible witnesses, as required by section 1339 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and this was held to be sufficient proof of the authenticity of the will. The initial clause also contained the name of the testator. The court said that this also established the fact that the document was intended by him to be his last will, and that "the writing by him of his name in that clause was itself a sufficient signature."

The declarations in these cases are entirely consistent with the rule stated in Estate of Walker, that "To sign an instrument or document is to make any mark upon it in token of knowledge, approval, acceptance, or obligation. The signature is the sign thus made." In neither of them was there any discussion, or need of discussion, as to the kind of proof permissible to establish the fact that the signature appearing in an olographic will, though not at the usual place at the end of the document, was nevertheless intended as a signature in execution thereof. They do not in the least control our decision of this question. The true rule, as we conceive it to be, is that, wherever placed, the fact that it was intended as an executing signature must satisfactorily appear on the face of the document itself. If it is at the end of the document, the universal custom of mankind forces the conclusion that it was appended as an execution, if nothing to the contrary appears. If placed elsewhere, it is for the court to say, from an inspection of the whole document, its language as well as its form, and the relative position of its parts, whether or not there is a positive and satisfactory inference from the document itself that the signature was so placed with the intent that it should there serve as a token of execution. If such inference thus appears, the execution may be considered as proven by such signature.

This rule has the support of the better reasoned decisions of other jurisdictions. Thus, in Waller v. Waller, 1 Gratt. (Va.) 474, [42 Am. Dec. 564], where the subject is elaborately discussed, the court says that the signing of the will is required as proof "that the act is a complete, concluded act,"

and that "the signing must be such as upon the face and from the frame of the instrument appears to have been intended to give it authenticity. It must appear that the name so written was regarded as a signature, that the instrument was regarded as complete without further signature and the paper itself must show this." In Warwick v. Warwick, 86 Va. 596, [6 L. R. A. 775, 10 S. E. 843], the will began as follows: "I, Abraham Warwick, declare this to be my last will and testament," but the testator's name did not occur elsewhere in the will, and there was no declaration in the document that the signature at the beginning was written for the purpose of authentication or execution. The court held that the signature was not "affixed in such a manner as to make it manifest that the name was intended as a signature." To the same effect are Catlett v. Catlett, 55 Mo. 339; Crutcher v. Crutcher, 30 Tenn. (11 Humph.) 384; Armant's Succession, 43 La. Ann. 415, [26 Am. St. Rep. 183, 9 South. 50]; In re Tyrrell's Estate, 17 Ariz. 418, [153 Pac. 767]; French v. French, 14 W. Va. 479. And in the recent decision in Estate of Dombrowski, 163 Cal. 295, [125 Pac. 235], we said: "No doubt a subscription or signing of any kind will not constitute a valid execution of a will unless made with the intention, on the part of the testator, of finally and completely authenticating the will." This was said of an attested will, but that it was not supposed to state a rule confined to attested wills is shown by the fact that Waller v. Waller, 1 Gratt. (Va.) 474, [42 Am. Dec. 564], is cited as an application of it.

The few decisions to the effect that where the name of the testator appears only in the initial clause of an olographic will, the will may be considered as "signed" within the meaning of statutes similar to ours, are all based on the supposed authority of the English case of Lemayne v. Stanley, 3 Lev. 1, [83 Eng. Reprint, 545], decided in 1681. The will there considered was an attested will. The subsequent cases following it take it as absolute authority, and do not properly distinguish or limit the scope of its language. The case has been criticised in England and limited strictly to cases where witnesses saw the will written or where it was subsequently acknowledged before them. (Morrison v. Turnour, 18 Ves. Jr. 175, [34 Eng. Reprint, 284]; Coles v. Trecothick, 9 Ves. Jr. 234, [32 Eng. Reprint, 598].) To overcome its effect in

England the statutes of 1 Vict., 15 Vict., and 16 Vict. were enacted, changing the law so as to require that "all wills be signed at the end thereof." In view of this consequence of that decision, it is obvious that its authority should not be considered as controlling. The rule we have stated is, in our judgment, supported by sounder reasons and is less likely to produce evil results.

Our conclusion is that the document in question was not signed by the testator, as required by section 1277, and that it is not entitled to probate.

The order is reversed.

Henshaw, J., Lorigan, J., Melvin, J., Sloss, J., Lawlor, J., and Angellotti, C. J., concurred.

[S. F. No. 7779. Department Two.-February 16, 1917.] In the Matter of the Estate of ELIZABETH R. MCMAHON, Deceased.

OLOGRAPHIC WILL-SUFFICIENCY OF SIGNING BY TESTATOR-ABSENCE OF SUBSCRIPTION.-A document testamentary in character and entirely in the handwriting of the writer, although not subscribed at the end thereof, is sufficiently signed to constitute its due execution as an olographic will, where in its exordium it declared, "This is the last will and testament of Elizabeth R. McMahon," the name of the writer, and concluded as follows: "I do hereby publish and declare the foregoing entirely written, dated and signed by my own hand, to be my last will and testament, this second day of January, 1912."

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco admitting a will to probate. Thomas F. Graham, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

W. A. Breen, and Mastick & Partridge, for Appellant.

Herbert Choynski, and James Raleigh Kelly, for Respond

ent.

HENSHAW, J.-In this case a written instrument was admitted to probate as the last will and testament of Elizabeth R. McMahon, deceased. The writing was unwitnessed and unattested. It was therefore olographic in its nature. In its exordium it declared: "This is the last will and testament of Elizabeth R. McMahon." Following this the writing contained certain specific bequests and devises, with a residuary clause, and a clause appointing an executor. It concluded as follows: "I do hereby publish and declare the foregoing, entirely written, dated and signed by my own hand, to be my last will and testament, this second day of January, 1912." No signature followed this declaration. No signature of the testatrix appeared in any other place upon the instrument saving in the exordium as above noted, Upon this showing the court entered its decree admitting the will to probate and from that decree this appeal is taken.

This court has very recently been called upon to consider the nature of the evidence permissible and sufficient to establish the due execution of an olographic will, where the signing thereof by the testator is not in the customary place at the end of the instrument. (Estate of Manchester, ante, p. 417, [163 Pac. 358].) The conclusion there reached and expressed is that it must be established upon the face of the offered instrument that it is a complete and executed document; that notwithstanding that the usual place of signing and so of evidencing this execution and completeness is at the end of the instrument, the signature of the testator found elsewhere. than at the end may be, if circumstances warrant it, a signature of execution, but that the only evidence which will warrant this conclusion must be found in and on the instrument itself; or, in other words, that the proof of this cannot rest in parol, for to admit parol evidence (aside from the other legal evils which might readily be pointed out) is also to admit that the instrument in an essential element of its validity is equivocal, and therefore is not complete upon its face; and this admission is itself destructive of the instrument as a completed will, since only a will showing upon its face due and complete execution is entitled to probate. In the Manchester case the opening paragraph of the offered instrument declared: "I, Matilda Manchester, leave and bequeath," etc. It concluded with the following: "Whereunto I hereby set my hand this fourteenth day of January, 1914.”