In re Proving the Last Will & Testament of Norminton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Proving the Last Will & Testament of Norminton

261 A.D. 1105, 27 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8983

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 28, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 261 A.D. 1105 (In re Proving the Last Will & Testament of Norminton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Proving the Last Will & Testament of Norminton, 261 A.D. 1105, 27 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8983 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

In a contested proceeding for the probate of a will, decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, entered on a directed verdict, admitting the will to probate, reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. It was error to exclude the testimony of the witness Florence N. Howard as to conversations with the deceased, if such conversations occurred before the making of the will, or subsequent thereto at a time not too remote from its date. The witness having renounced all claims against the estate, was not a person interested in the event within section 347 of the Civil Practice Act, and her testimony as to conversations with the decedent was, therefore, competent. (Matter of Wilson, 103 N. Y. 374; Loder v. Whelpley, 111 id. 239; Matter of Kindberg, 207 id. 220; Matter of Lawler, 253 App. Div. 120.) Even if the conversations occurred after the will had been made, they would be admissible, if not too remote in point of time, to show the state of mind of the testatrix toward those about her and her ability to resist influence. (Matter of Putnam, 257 N. Y. 140.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

In a contested proceeding for the probate of a will, decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, entered on a directed verdict, admitting the will to probate, reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. It was error to exclude the testimony of the witness Florence N. Howard as to conversations with the deceased, if such conversations occurred before the making of the will, or subsequent thereto at a time not too remote from its date. The witness having renounced all claims against the estate, was not a person interested in the event within section 347 of the Civil Practice Act, and her testimony as to conversations with the decedent was, therefore, competent. (Matter of Wilson, 103 N. Y. 374; Loder v. Whelpley, 111 id. 239; Matter of Kindberg, 207 id. 220; Matter of Lawler, 253 App. Div. 120.) Even if the conversations occurred after the will had been made, they would be admissible, if not too remote in point of time, to show the state of mind of the testatrix toward those about her and her ability to resist influence. (Matter of Putnam, 257 N. Y. 140.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 1105, 27 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-proving-the-last-will-testament-of-norminton-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack