In re Proving the Last Will & Testament of Roche

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Proving the Last Will & Testament of Roche

244 A.D. 756

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

DecidedApril 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D. 756 (In re Proving the Last Will & Testament of Roche) 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 Roche, 244 A.D. 756 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

In a probate proceeding, decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Westchester county admitting the will to probate reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. In our opinion, the surrogate erred in excluding testimony of Dr. Fulton as to the physical and mental condition of the decedent on the day she executed the will, also as to the effect of the diseases from which she was suffering upon the mind and upon the brain. The surrogate also erred in excluding testimony as to the part Henry Abbey took in discussing decedent’s affairs and the preparation of the will, also testimony tending to show that decedent could only be seen with Mrs. Buekhout’s permission and that she also needed some one to take care of her and her business. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Seudder and Johnston, JJ., concur.

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

In a probate proceeding, decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Westchester county admitting the will to probate reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. In our opinion, the surrogate erred in excluding testimony of Dr. Fulton as to the physical and mental condition of the decedent on the day she executed the will, also as to the effect of the diseases from which she was suffering upon the mind and upon the brain. The surrogate also erred in excluding testimony as to the part Henry Abbey took in discussing decedent’s affairs and the preparation of the will, also testimony tending to show that decedent could only be seen with Mrs. Buekhout’s permission and that she also needed some one to take care of her and her business. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Seudder and Johnston, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D. 756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-proving-the-last-will-testament-of-roche-nyappdiv-1935.