Will—Subscription by Third Person at Bequest of Testator—Omission to Write Name as Witness—Due Execution.—Where a testatrix, with the undoubted intention to make her will, caused her name to be subscribed thereto by a third person in her presence and by her direction, such subscription, although the third person omitted to write his name as a witness to the will, is sufficient to effect its due execution, under sections 1276 and 1278 of the Civil Code.

Id.—Insufficient Subscription by Mark—Failure to Witness Mark. The validity of such a subscription is not affected by the fact that at the time thereof and as part of the same transaction the testatrix also subscribed her mark to the will, but that the signing by mark was incomplete and ineffectual for want of compliance with the -requirement of section 14 of the Civil Code, that where a subscription is by mark, the name of the person so signing is to be .written near the mark, by a person “who writes his own name as a witness.”

Id.—Execution of Will When Sufficient.—There is a valid execution of- a will where the' person undertaking to make it ias done certain acts with the intention of thereby executing it, leaving undone nothing which he undertook to do to carry out that intention, and the acts done include everything necessary, under our statutes,- to the execution of a will.

Id.—Order Admitting Will to Probate—Recital of Notice of Hearing—Appeal.—On an appeal from an order admitting a will to probate, a recital in the order of the giving of notice of the hearing of the petition for probate is sufficient to establish the truth of the fact recited, unless the record affirmatively shows that the recital is untrue.

Id.—Insufficient Showing of Want of Notice—Bill of Exceptions. Where it is apparent from the face of the bill of exceptions and on appeal from such order that it was designed merely to present for review the correctness of the findings of the court with respect to the issues raised by the contest of the probate of the will, the record will not he construed to affirmatively show a want of notice of the hearing, from the mere fact that no proof of such notice is contained in the bill, and that the hill recites that no proceedings, other than those mentioned therein, were had or taken.

Id.—Jurisdiction of Trial Court—Review on Appeal—Absence of Objection in Trial Court.—The supreme court will not upon appeal review the conclusions of a trial court as to facts essential to its jurisdiction, concerning which such court was vested with the power to hear and determine, at the instance of a party who has appeared in that court in the action or proceeding and has omitted there to in any way urge his objection, but has proceeded therein upon the theory that the court had jurisdiction.