Harrison v. Axtell
75 A. 1100, 76 N.J. Eq. 614, 6 Buchanan 614, 1910 N.J. LEXIS 256
Opinion
We concur in the opinion expressed by the ordinary that the respondent Axtell fairly sustained the burden of showing that the will was not the product of undue influence, but of the full and independent judgment of the testatrix, and, for this reason, affirm the decree under review.
For affirmance—Ti-ie Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Reed, Tbenchard, Parker, Bergen, Voori-iees, Minturn, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Gray, Congdon—14.
For reversal—Fone.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Harrison v. Axtell, 75 A. 1100, 76 N.J. Eq. 614, 6 Buchanan 614, 1910 N.J. LEXIS 256 (N.J. 1910).
75 A. 1100 (Harrison v. Axtell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
In Re Will of Landsman
725 A.2d 90 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1999)
In Re Estate of Churik
397 A.2d 677 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1978)
In Re Weeks
103 A.2d 43 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1954)
In Re Nixon
37 A.2d 295 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1944)
In Re Raynolds
27 A.2d 226 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1942)
In Re Bartles
13 A.2d 642 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1940)
In Re Tobin
163 A. 128 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1932)
In Re O'Brien
130 A. 459 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1925)