Delacroiex v. Lefferts

New York Supreme Court

Delacroiex v. Lefferts

6 N.Y.S. 191, 25 N.Y. St. Rep. 630, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 494

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 9, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 N.Y.S. 191 (Delacroiex v. Lefferts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Delacroiex v. Lefferts, 6 N.Y.S. 191, 25 N.Y. St. Rep. 630, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 494 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

The only questions which arise on this appeal are questions of fact. The argument in behalf of the appellant is devoted wholly to the effort to show that “this appellant, Catharine Lefferts, is the daughter or child of William Darling, deceased, the testator herein.” The evidence bearing on the issue of kinship is considered so fully, so fairly, and so satisfactorily in the opinion of Surrogate Rollins that an extended discussion of the proofs on our part would be little more than a repetition of the views which he has expressed. It is only necessary to say, therefore, that we deem his conclusions amply sustained by the testimony, and, indeed, it is difficult to perceive how any other result could have been reached. The decree should be affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pee Curiam.

The only questions which arise on this appeal are questions of fact. The argument in behalf of the appellant is devoted wholly to the effort to show that “this appellant, Catharine Lefferts, is the daughter or child of William Darling, deceased, the testator herein.” The evidence bearing on the issue of kinship is considered so fully, so fairly, and so satisfactorily in the opinion of Surrogate Rollins that an extended discussion of the proofs on our part would be little more than a repetition of the views which he has expressed. It is only necessary to say, therefore, that we deem his conclusions amply sustained by the testimony, and, indeed, it is difficult to perceive how any other result could have been reached. The decree should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 N.Y.S. 191, 25 N.Y. St. Rep. 630, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delacroiex-v-lefferts-nysupct-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack