In re the appeal from the decree of the orphans court

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

In re the appeal from the decree of the orphans court

158 A. 734, 10 N.J. Misc. 87, 1932 N.J. Prerog. Ct. LEXIS 36

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedJanuary 13, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 158 A. 734 (In re the appeal from the decree of the orphans court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the appeal from the decree of the orphans court, 158 A. 734, 10 N.J. Misc. 87, 1932 N.J. Prerog. Ct. LEXIS 36 (N.J. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Ingeksoll, Y. 0.

After a very careful examination of the testimony, and due consideration of the arguments presented, I concur in the findings of the orphans court, and were it not for the fact that the judge of that court concludes his opinion as follows: “I am of the opinion, and I find as a fact, that the caveators have failed in their proof to establish the fact that the will was the result of undue influence, and will dismiss the caveat and order the probate of the will/’ I would advise an affirmance upon that opinion.

However, I deem it necessary to refer to the question of burden of proof.

It is unnecessary to determine whether the circumstances which have been related raise the presumption that undue influence had been exerted by the proponent (In re Morrisey’s Will, 91 N. J. Eq. 180), as that presumption has been overcome by his denial in a convincing manner. In re Morrisey’s Will, supra; In re Sparks’ Case, 68 N. J. Eq. 242.

I will, therefore, advise an order affirming the order of the orphans court.

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

Ingeksoll, Y. 0.

After a very careful examination of the testimony, and due consideration of the arguments presented, I concur in the findings of the orphans court, and were it not for the fact that the judge of that court concludes his opinion as follows: “I am of the opinion, and I find as a fact, that the caveators have failed in their proof to establish the fact that the will was the result of undue influence, and will dismiss the caveat and order the probate of the will/’ I would advise an affirmance upon that opinion.

However, I deem it necessary to refer to the question of burden of proof.

It is unnecessary to determine whether the circumstances which have been related raise the presumption that undue influence had been exerted by the proponent (In re Morrisey’s Will, 91 N. J. Eq. 180), as that presumption has been overcome by his denial in a convincing manner. In re Morrisey’s Will, supra; In re Sparks’ Case, 68 N. J. Eq. 242.

I will, therefore, advise an order affirming the order of the orphans court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A. 734, 10 N.J. Misc. 87, 1932 N.J. Prerog. Ct. LEXIS 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-appeal-from-the-decree-of-the-orphans-court-njsuperctappdiv-1932.