as well as to be so near in person to the witnesses as to be able to observe their actions by his different senses.* A witness will be deemed to have signed in the presence of the testator, if he signs where the testator could see him if he so desired. This holding is further construed to mean that the testator must be able to see the witness sign without going to any unreasonable effort to do so.‡ When the witness signs in the same room with the testator, it will be presumed that the testator could have seen him sign if he desired. But this presumption may be overthrown by evidence.§ Likewise where the witness signs in another room, it is the presumption that it was not done in the testator's presence. But it may be shown, that though done in another room, the signing was done where the testator could have seen it without changing his position or location, or without an unreasonable effort on his part, it then will be sufficient.¶ Where the testator is blind, or so physically weak, that he could not see the signing, though done within the vision of a sound person, the will must be signed, *Page on Wills, Sec. 209, citing Walters v. Walters, 89 Va. 849; Waite v. Frisbie, 45 Minn. 361; Green v. Green, 105 Ill. 264; Walker v. Walker, 67 Miss. 529, and others. Walker v. Walker, 67 Miss. 529; Maynard v. Vinton, 59 Mich. 139; Hamlin v. Fletcher, 64 Ga. 549. Baldwin v. Baldwin, 81 Va. 405; Turner v. Cook, 36 Ind. 129; Watson v. Pipes, 33 Miss. 451. SAyers v. Ayers, 43 N. J. Eq. 565. [Lamb v. Girtman, 26 Ga. 625; Hopkins v. Wheeler (R. I.), 45 Atl. Rep. 551; Cook v. Winchester, 81 Mich. 581. if possible, where he can take cognizance of the act by his other senses. A few cases go still further and hold, that if the witnesses sign within the hearing, knowledge, and understanding of the testator, and so near to him, as not to be substantially away from him, it is sufficient, though the witnesses sign where the testator could not see them.† It is held by the weight of authority, under the rule that the testator must see the witnesses sign, that he should see something tangible in connection with their signing, as the paper, the motion of the pen, or the like.‡ But it is unnecessary for him to see the letters of the signature as they are written. *Riggs v. Riggs, 135 Mass. 238; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 1 Spears (S. Car.) 253; In re Piercy, 1 Rob. 278. Riggs v. Riggs, 135 Mass. 238; Smith v. Holden, 58 Kan. 535; Cunningham v. Cunningham, 83 N. W. Rep. 58; Sturdivant v. Birchett, 10 Grat. (Va.) 67; Cook v. Winchester, 81 Mich. 581. In this last case the provision of the Michigan Statute, which requires that the will should be attested and subscribed in the presence of the testator by two or more competent witnesses, was held to be satisfied where the witnesses subscribed their names in another room, but within the hearing, knowledge and understanding of the testatrix, after which they returned to her room, and the will, consisting of one sheet of paper, was read over and the signatures of the witnesses shown to her, and she was informed by one of them in the presence of the other that the will had been signed by them, the testatrix replying, "It is all right, and just as I want it; the witnesses and everything are all right." Knox v. Knox, 10 Gratt. (Va.) 106; Burney v. Allen, 125 N. C. 315; Ayers v. Ayers, 43 N. J. Eq. 565; Graham v. Graham, 10 Ired. (N. C.) 219. Where the witnesses have failed to sign in the presence of the testator and the rule of construction requires it, they cannot afterwards acknowledge their signatures in the presence of the testator so as to overcome the objection. And this is so although they retrace their names with a dry pen in the presence of the testator.* There is some conflict of authority as to the order in which the witnesses may sign in connection with the testator. Where the testator and the witnesses sign substantially together, so that the signing by all is contemporaneous in point of time, it will not invalidate the will though one or more of the witnesses signed before the testator. But the witnesses must remain to see the testator sign.† Sec. 980. SAME SUBJECT-THE ATTESTATION CLAUSE CONSIDERED.-It is the rule to conclude a will with a formal attestation clause, but such a clause is not necessary to the validity of the will, although its presence may aid the recollection of the witnesses, or in the event of their failure to recollect the circumstances of the execution it may be sufficient to raise a presumption of due execution. But such a pre *Mendell v. Dunbar, 169 Mass. 74; Duffie v. Corridon, 40 Ga. 122; Goods of Maddock, 43 L. J. P. 29; L. R. 3 P. & M. 169. fGibs on v. Nelson, 181 Ill. 122; Moale v. Cutting, 59 Md. 510; Kaufman v. Caughman, 49 S. Car. 159; Mundy v. Mundy, 15 N. J. Eq. 290; contra, Goods of Olding, 2 Curt. Ecc. 865; Brooks v. Woodson, 87 Ga. 379, 14 L. R. A. 160; Simmons v. Leonard, 91 Tenn. 183. Baskin v. Baskin, 36 N. Y. 416; Berberet v. Berberet, 181 sumption is only prima facie, and a formal attestation clause will not prevail over positive proof of the absence of due execution.† Some statutes require that the residences of the witnesses be placed opposite their signatures, but this provision while valuable to be conformed to, is held to be directory only, and if not complied with the will is still valid.‡ Sec. 981. COMPETENT SUBSCRIBING WITNESSES? -The Statutes of Wills require that a will shall be attested by "competent" or "credible" witnesses. These words being held to have practically the same meaning.§ SAME SUBJECT-WHO ARE Mo. 399; Hallowell v. Hallowell, 81 Ind. 251. In the last case it is held that a will containing an unsigned attestation clause or an incomplete one is not therefore to be held invalid on the ground that the testator did not intend to have it operate as a will. †Swain v. Edmunds, 54 N. J. Eq. 488; In re Hunt, 110 N. Y. 278; Deupree v. Deupree, 45 Ga. 415. A common form of the attestation clause is "The above instrument, consisting of —— pages, was at the date thereof, signed, sealed, published, and declared, by the said testator, A. B., as and for his last will and testament, in the presence of us; who at his request, and in his presence, and in the presence of each other, have attested the same and subscribed our names as witnesses thereto." (Signed.) C. D., E. F. Dodge v. Finlay, 57 N. Y. Sup. 791; Succession of Justus, 47 La. Ann. 302. See Rev. Stat. of Ohio, Sec. 5916; Amoury v. Fellows, 5 Mass. 219; Hall v. Hall, 18 Ga. 40; Fisher v. Spence, 150 Пl. 253; Gamble v. Butchee, 87 Tex. 643. The requirements as to competency refer to the time of In general, to be competent, the witnesses must be Sec. 982. SAME SUBJECT-WHAT INTER- An interest as an executor under the will, or in any *Harp v. Parr. 168 Ill. 459; Smith v. Jones, 68 Vt. 132; Carlton v. Carlton, 40 N. Y. 14; Jones v. Tebbetts, 57 Me. Smalley v. Smalley, 70 Me. 545; Grimm v. Tittman, 113 Baker v. Bancroft, 79 Ga. 672; Sears v. Dillingham, 12 |