
    No. 9481.
    Succession of Louisa Dorries.
    A. nuncupative -will Toy public act -which does not contain express mention that it was written by the notary, is a nullity. The omission to so declare is fatal, as it cannot he supplied by testimony aliunde.
    
    The ia-w imperiously exacts not only that the prescribed formalities be observed, but also that an explicit recital be made that they have been fulfilled j and this under pain of* nullity of the act
    
      PPEAL from tlie Civil District Court for tlie Parish of Orleans. !JL Tissot, J. -
    
      J. R. Beelcwitll and H. JS. Upton for Appellant:
    If an examination of tlie "whole "will will show that it was read to the testator in the presence ence of the witnesses, it is immaterial in what words the idea is convoyed. 1 H. S. 73; 3 N. S. 368.
    It suffices if, from tlie whole instrument, it cnn bo inferred that the witnesses were present. 26 Ann. 338; 12 Ann. 604.
    When the will states that “the testatrix declared and dictated it to the notary, and that it was made and signed by her and the witnesses after it was read,” it may be fairly inferred that the witnesses and notary were all present during the dictation and execution. Pizerot et a], vs. Meiullon’s Heirs, 3 M. 114.
    
      Branujlvn, Buelc, Binlcelspiel <& Bart for Appellees:
    It is a fatal objection to a will offered as an authentic nuncupative one, that no mention is made of its having been written by the notary. 6 Hew Series. 263
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Bermudez, C. J.

The will of the deceased, which is in the nuncupative form by public act, is attacked on various grounds, one of which is that it does not contain the formal declaration that it was written by the notary.

We have carefully scanned the instrument and weighed each and every word used in the procés verbal of the notary, whether in the caption or in the closing part, and have failed to find any from which it can be even inferred tiiat the will was written by that officer.

The law, in mandatory terms, imperiously requires that express mention be made, not only that the will was'dictated by the testator and read to him, but also that it was written by the notary; and this under pain of nullity.

The omission to recite explicitly strict compliance with the requirements of the law is fatal, as it cannot be supplied by testimony aliunde. R. C. C. 1578, 1595; see 3 M. 167; 6 N. S. 263; 12 L. 114; 8 A. 469; 15 L. 28; 1 R. 48; 11 Ann. 108; 16 L. 82; 20 Ann. 203; 21 Ann. 115; 35 Ann, 480.

In the Lawson case, 12 Ann. 604, in which the will had been attacked because it did not set forth that it had been written by the notary, in the presence of the witnesses, the instrument contained express mention that the notary had written it in his own proper hand. What the Court held is: that it was fairly deducible from the tenor of the instrument that the witnesses were present while it was being prepared.

The other authorities referred to do not apply to a case of writing by the notary.

In the present case, the word written, or its equivalent, is essentially lacking.

The will is a nullity.

.Judgment affirmed.  