163 Va. 492, 175 S.E. 748 (Va. 1934)
Thompson v. Royall is a leading Virginia decision—and a staple of Wills and Trusts courses—illustrating strict compliance with statutory formalities for revoking a will.
Does a handwritten memorandum on the back of a will—stating that the will is revoked but not signed by the testatrix and not physically defacing any part of the will—constitute a valid revocation under Virginia's statute allowing revocation by cancellation or by a properly executed writing?
Under the Virginia statute in force at the time, a will may be revoked only by: (1) the testator's performance (or performance by another in the testator's presence and by the testator's direction) of a physical act upon the instrument—cutting, tearing, burning, obliterating, or canceling—demonstrating an intent to revoke; or (2) a subsequent writing declaring revocation, executed with the same formalities required for a will (i.e., signed by the testator and duly attested by witnesses). "Cancellation" denotes a physical defacement or obliteration of the written instrument itself, and mere declarations of intent or writings not executed with testamentary formalities are insufficient.
No. The memorandum did not effect a valid revocation. It was not a proper "cancellation" because it did not physically deface or obliterate any part of the will, and it was not a valid revocatory writing because it lacked the testatrix's signature and was not executed with the requisite formalities.
Thompson v. Royall teaches two enduring lessons. First, "cancellation" is a physical act upon the instrument itself; it is not satisfied by a declaration written elsewhere that leaves the testamentary language intact. Second, revocation by writing requires full compliance with will formalities, including the testator's signature. The case is frequently used to contrast strict-compliance jurisdictions with modern harmless-error reforms and to highlight the tension between testamentary intent and formal safeguards. For students, it is a canonical example of Wills Act formalism and a warning against informal revocation practices.