
    MEANS v. URY.
    (Filed May 1, 1906).
    
      Wills — Marriage—Revocation—Republication.
    Under Revisal, section 3116, tlie will of a married woman is revoked by another marriage contracted after the will was made, and her verbal declaration, during the last coverture, that said paper writing was her last will and testament without any further execution thereof, in accordance with the statute, does not constitute a re-execution and republication of it.
    IN the matter of tbe will of Cameline Means, beard by Judge M. H. Justice upon an issue of devisavit vel non at tbe September Term, 1905, of tbe Superior Court of Cabae-kus., Erom a judgment in favor of tbe caveator, Lafayette Ury, tbe propounder, Edward Means, appealed.
    
      Adams, Armfield, Jerome & Maness for the propounder.
    
      L. T. Hartsell and M. B. Stickley for the caveator.
   Brown, J.

Cameline Means, while tbe wife of Epbriam Means, made ber will, and some time thereafter, being a widow, married Jason Carr, and during sucb coverture verbally declared said paper writing to be ber last will and testament without any further execution thereof, in accordance with tbe statute.

The court below adjudged tbe paper writing not to be tbe last will and testament of Cameline Means, upon tbe ground that it was revoked by ber subsequent marriage, and that ber verbal declarations could not constitute a re-execution and republi cation of it. We think tbe ruling sound.

In respect to ber capacity to make a will, the feme covert stands upon tbe same footing as tbe feme sole. Her will is revoked by a subsequent marriage, as much so as if she were a feme sole when she made it, and then married. Tbe right of a married woman to make a will is guaranteed by the Constitution, but that in no way .affects the statute declaring that such a will may be revoked by another marriage contracted after the will was made. Revisal, section 3116.

Affirmed.  