In re Ketcham's Estate

5 N.Y.S. 566, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2522
CourtNew York Surrogate's Court
DecidedMay 10, 1889
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 5 N.Y.S. 566 (In re Ketcham's Estate) 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
In re Ketcham's Estate, 5 N.Y.S. 566, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2522 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).

Opinion

Abbott, S.

The only material point to be decided in this application is, what wrns the date of death of the intestate? While the law raises a presumption of death after an absence of seven years, unheard of, yet it raises no presumption as to time of death. If it becomes important for a party to establish a precise time of death, he must do so by evidence, and cannot rely either upon the presumption of death or of the continuance of life. The time of death, whenever it is material, must be inferred from all the circumstances of the case. While the presumption does not attach to a lapse of time less than seven years, yet, after a lapse of seven years, should all the circumstances warrant it, the fact of death may be found from the lapse of a shorter period. The issuing of letters of administration upon the estate of a person is prima facie evidence of the person’s death, as it will be presumed that the court issuing the letters did so upon competent proof of that fact. After examining the petition afld all the testimony taken in the application for letters of administration in this matter, I have no doubt the intestate died on or about the 16th day of November, 1876, and I so hold.

Such being the case, he left him surviving, as his next of kin, entitled to share in his estate, his uncle, John H. Allen, and his three aunts, Cynthia McKee, Elizabeth Leek, and Sarah Burtis. The share of Sarah Burtis was vested at the time of her death, and is now payable to Leonard J. Burtis, her sole next of kin and administrator. Let decree be entered accordingly.

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

Related

In re the Estate of Cosentino
177 Misc. 2d 629 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1998)
In re the Estate of Katz
135 Misc. 861 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1930)
Glasscock v. Weare
234 S.W. 216 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1921)
Wagner v. Alderson
157 P. 476 (Washington Supreme Court, 1916)
In re the Estate of Losee
4 Mills Surr. 483 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1905)
In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Davenport
2 Mills Surr. 534 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1902)
Johnson v. Pennsylvania Railroad
43 A.D. 453 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 N.Y.S. 566, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ketchams-estate-nysurct-1889.