Spouses drafted a mutual will which included an arrangement under which upon the demise of one, or both at the same time, the next in line to inherit the estate would be their three children in equal parts. After the husband death the wife drafted a new will in which she set an unequal division of the property between the children.
The Court held that the first mutual will is the valid one due to the arrangement of an heir after an heir entailed therein. A will is deemed mutual when the arrangements made by one are based on the arrangements made by the other. The arrangement of “an heir after an heir” sets the order of heirs to the estate upon the demise of the testator the first heir will inherit and after the demise of the first heir the estate or its remainder shall be inherited by a second designated heir. A mutual will that includes instructions " an heir after an heir” provision may not be changed upon the death of one of the testators. Here, the couple drafted identical wills and an equal division was set between the children as the next heirs. In the later will, the woman did bequeath to the three children however not in an equal manner. The second will therefore be invalidated.