
    Rowan’s Estate.
    
      Wills — Issue devisavit vel non — Refusal of issue — Signature—■ Alterations — Evidence.
    An issue devisavit vel non is properly refused where five witnesses positively identify the signature to the will as that of the testatrix, and testify that the entire will is in her handwriting, including interlineations and additions, and only one testifies that she thought the handwriting did not look like that of testatrix.
    The will is not avoided because the testatrix in her own handwriting added interlineations to identify two of the devisees by their married names, and because she added the abbreviations “Jr” to the name of the executor.
    Argued Jan. 4, 1912.
    Appeal, No. 171, Jan. T., 1912, by Sarah Harper, from decree of O. C. Phila. Co., Oct T., 1909, No. 385, refusing issue devisavit vel non in Estate of Emma A. Rowan, deceased.
    Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Appeal from Register of Wills.
    Tbe opinion of tbe Supreme Court states tbe case.
    
      Error assigned was tbe decree dismissing tbe appeal.
    
      Frederick Beyer, for appellant.
    — Where there is a substantial dispute upon a material question of fact, sucb an issue is a matter of right, and tbe test of substantiality in tbe dispute is that a verdict could be supported by tbe trial Judge, upon a review of all tbe évidence adduced: Sharpless’ Estate, 134 Pa. 250; Knauss’ App., 114 Pa. 10; Armour’s Estate, 154 Pa. 517; Robinson v. Robinson, 203 Pa. 400.
    When tbe testator adds to bis will or desires to change in any manner its provisions or directions he must do so by another will or codicil in writing: Wineland’s App., 118 Pa. 37; Hays v. Harden, 6 Pa. 409.
    
      Joseph P. McCullen, with him Harry Green, for apipellees.
    — There was no evidence to warrant tbe granting of an issue: Knauss’ App., 114 Pa. 10.
    Tbe interlineations written into tbe will by tbe testatrix did not invalidate tbe document: Heise v. Heise, 31 Pa. 246; Taylor’s Estate, 230 Pa. 346.
    The interlineations and tbe addition of tbe abbreviation “Jr.” in tbe appointment of an executor did not serve to revoke tbe executed will and did not amount to an obliteration or cancellation or invalidation of tbe document: Dixon’s Appeal, 55 Pa. 424; Linnard’s Appeal, 93 Pa. 313; Tomlinson’s Estate, 133 Pa. 245; Teed’s Estate, 225 Pa. 633; Taylor’s Estate, 230 Pa. 346; Fuguet’s Will, 11 Phila. 75; Ramsey’s Will, 2 Pa. D. R. 425.
    February 5, 1912:
   Opinion by

Mr. Justice Potter,

Tbe appellant in this case alleges that tbe Orphans’ Court erred in refusing to grant an issue devisavit vel non, to determine whether tbe writing admitted to probate is in fact tbe will of Emma A. Rowan, deceased. We are not impressed with tbe merit of this contention. •The action of tbe court beloAV seems to be abundantly justified by tbe undisputed facts which appear in tbe record. Five witnesses positively identified tbe signature to tbe will as being that of tbe decedent, Emma A. Rowan, and they testified that tbe entire will was in her bandwriting, including tbe interlineations and additions. Opposed to this positive testimony was nothing except tbe opinion of one witness, tbe appellant, who thought the handwriting did not look like that of Emma A. Rowan. Evidence of this character, as against the positive identification of the handwriting, was not sufficient to justify the granting of an issue; and it was properly refused. The interlineations were not in the nature of alterations to the will. They tended only to further identify two of the devisees, .by adding their married names, and the addition of the abbreviation “Jr.” to the name of the executor, was of the same character. The Orphans’ Court was undoubtedly right in holding that these changes, made after the execution of the will, did not avoid it.

The assignments of error are overruled, and the decree of the court below is affirmed.  