
    Brayfield vs. Brayfield.
    Appeal from a decree of the Orphans Court of Frederick county. The nuncupative will of Samuel Brayfield, pronounced by him in the presence of three witnessess on the 22d of April 1807, two days before his death, he being then in his last sickness, at his own house, and after-wards on the 28th of April 1807, reduced to writing, and signed by the three witnesses in the presence of two witnesses, was offered for probate in the orphans court. One of the witnesses of the will was the wife of one of the legatees, but which legatee, by a release duly executed on the 28th of April 1807, released to John Brayfield, (the appellee,) and his sister Milley, a brother and sister of the whole blood of the deceased, all his right, claim and interest, under the will. The other property of the deceased, amounting by an inventory thereof, to §3236 48, he bequeathed to his wife and her two children, S and J. Pancoast, then living with the deceased, and to whom he was guardian. Citations issued for the persons related to the deceased, none of whom but Jane Brayfield, (the appellant,) the widow of the deceased, were summoned. She appeared, and not objecting, the probate of the will was ordered by the court to be taken and recorded; and probate was accordingly taken before the orphans court on the 9th of June 1807, of the three witnesses of the nuncupative will of S. Brayjield, so reduced to writing, and signed by them; and letters of administration, with a copy of the said will annexed, were granted to Jane Bray-field. On the petition of John Brayjield, the brother of the deceased, the court proceeded to rehear the case, and caused sundry depositions of witnesses to be taken. After which, they decreed that the will, purporting to be the nuncupative will of Samuel Bray field, ought not to prevail, and that the letters of administration be revoked. From that decree Jane Brayjield appealed to this court.
    
      
      X ‘nuncupative will established ■where the peí sosia! property, of which the deceased died possessed, amounted by the iinventorj to £3235 48.
    A nuncupative will was proved hy three witnesses, one of whom was the wife of one of the legatees, but which legatee had released all his interest, &c to certain of the representatives of the deceased; and although the release Was not accepted by the releasees, it was held to be a good release, and that the will was legally peeved
    
      The cause was argued before Polk, Buchanan, Earle, and Johnson, J.
    
      Shaaff and Taney, for the Appellant,
    contended, that the release by Davis, was a good release, although it . was not accepted by the releasees. They cited Shaffer vs. Corbett, 3 Harr. & M‘Hen. 513; and Peake's Evid. 159.
    
      Brooke, for the Appellee,
    referred to the act of 1798, ch. 101, sub ch. 2, s. 13, and contended that the will must be proved by three disinterested witnesses. That the release by Davis was not accepted, and that it had not been given to all of the representatives of the deceased, and of course it had no operation.
   The Court

reversed the decree of the orphans court, and decreed that the nuncupative will of Samuel Bray-field, stated in the record, be confirmed, and that it b.e admitted to probate by the orphans court, and that the letters of administration, granted to Jane Brayfield, be also ratified and confirmed.

uecb.ee reversed.  