Testimony of bank employee that the signature of the witness to the will was her own, and that she would not have signed as witness if she had not seen the testator sign the will and had identified the testator, together with the testimony of the sole beneficiary of the will, who had lived with the testator for 20 years and was familiar with his signature, was sufficient to admit the will to probate, and contradictory evidence was relevant only if forgery was alleged at a later time. Walden Estate, 10 Fid.Rep.3d 95 (Philadelphia O.C. 2020).

[Note: The concluding statement by the court that the heir who testified that the signature was not that the of testator could challenge the will as a forgery “at a later time” is puzzling. The Register of Wills had denied probate, and on appeal the Orphans’ Court was ordering that the will be admitted to probate. At what “later time” could or should the will be challenged?]