Graber v. Haaz

2 Dem. Sur. 216
CourtNew York Surrogate's Court
DecidedFebruary 15, 1883
StatusPublished

This text of 2 Dem. Sur. 216 (Graber v. Haaz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Surrogate's Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Graber v. Haaz, 2 Dem. Sur. 216 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1883).

Opinion

The Surrogate.

One of the subscribing witnesses to the instrument offered as decedent’s will has not been produced. There is no proof that he is dead, or a lunatic, or incompetent to testify. There is some evidence tending to show, though not establishing to my satisfaction, that he is absent from the State. It certainly does not appear that he might not, by. due diligence, be found either in the State or out of it, and that his testimony might not be thereupon obtained by a commission.

Now, where there are only two subscribing witnesses, the examination of both is essential, if both are-accessible (Code Civ. Pro., §§ 8618, 8619, 8680).

This instrument must, therefore, be refused probate. [217]*217unless the proponents take steps to examine the subscribing witness Hope, orally or by commission, or to establish more satisfactorily their inability so to do.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Dem. Sur. 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graber-v-haaz-nysurct-1883.