No particular form is required for the disposition of property by will, and “the distinguishing feature of all testamentary instruments, whatever their form, is that the paper-writing must appear to be written animo testandi.” Spencer v. Spencer, 163 N. C., 88.

Tested by this principle, we have- no doubt as to the correctness of the ruling holding the paper-writing offered for probate to be in form a will. The paper was written by the maker two days before his death, and evidently in contemplation of death. It enumerates all of his property and contains a statement of his indebtedness; it gives everything to his wife, but wants it invested so the wife will “get it as she needs it,” and fixed so she will have plenty as long as she lives, and asks Mr. Ivey, to whom it is addressed, to administer on his estate. The maker could not have given stronger evidence of a purpose to settle his estate and to dispose of it after his death. The fact that it was in the form of a letter detracts nothing from its testamentary character. Numerous cases will be found in the notes to Richardson v. Hardee, 15 L. R. A., 635, and Milan v. Stanley, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.), 1126, in support of the principle stated in the latter that “The rule that an instrument is valid as a will, if properly executed, whatever its form, provided the intention of the maker was to dispose of his estate after his death, is applicable to writings in the form of letters.”

*613 Tbe case of Spencer v. Spencer, supra, is no authority for tbe position that a paper in form of a letter cannot be a will; it simply holds that the paper then offered for probate had none of the earmarks of a will.

Affirmed.