In Re the Estate of Alper

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In Re the Estate of Alper

65 A.2d 736, 2 N.J. 104, 1949 N.J. LEXIS 240

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedApril 25, 1949

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 65 A.2d 736 (In Re the Estate of Alper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re the Estate of Alper, 65 A.2d 736, 2 N.J. 104, 1949 N.J. LEXIS 240 (N.J. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

The decree of the former Prerogative Court is affirmed, and generally for the reasons stated in the opinion *105 of the learned Yice-Ordinary. The proofs do not establish the charge that the paper writing purporting to be the decedent’s last will and testament was the product of undue influence.

We express no opinion as to the admissibility of declarations allegedly made by one of the subscribing witnesses since deceased which, in the view of appellant, “indicated that pressure was brought to bear on the decedent when the will was executed.” See Whitemack v. Stryker, 2 N. J. Eq. 8 (Prerog. Ct. 1838); Turner v. Cheesman, 15 N. J. Eq. 243 (Prerog. Ct. 1857); Reformed Dutch Church v. Ten Eyck, 25 N. J. L. 40 (Sup. Ct. 1855); Meeker v. Boylan, 28 N. J. L. 274 (Sup. Ct. 1860); Otterson v. Hofford, 36 N. J. L. 129 (Sup. Ct. 1873); In re Lee’s Case, 46 N. J. Eq. 193 (Prerog. Ct. 1889); In re Rein, 139 N. J. Eq. 122 (Prerog. Ct. 1946). We concur in the finding that this evidence is utterly without countervailing weight. The proofs overwhelmingly negative the existence of undue influence.

For affirmance—Chief Justice Yanderbilt, and Justices Case, Heher, Waoheneeld, Burling and Ackerson—6.

For reversal—None.

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

Pee Curiam.

The decree of the former Prerogative Court is affirmed, and generally for the reasons stated in the opinion *105 of the learned Yice-Ordinary. The proofs do not establish the charge that the paper writing purporting to be the decedent’s last will and testament was the product of undue influence.

We express no opinion as to the admissibility of declarations allegedly made by one of the subscribing witnesses since deceased which, in the view of appellant, “indicated that pressure was brought to bear on the decedent when the will was executed.” See Whitemack v. Stryker, 2 N. J. Eq. 8 (Prerog. Ct. 1838); Turner v. Cheesman, 15 N. J. Eq. 243 (Prerog. Ct. 1857); Reformed Dutch Church v. Ten Eyck, 25 N. J. L. 40 (Sup. Ct. 1855); Meeker v. Boylan, 28 N. J. L. 274 (Sup. Ct. 1860); Otterson v. Hofford, 36 N. J. L. 129 (Sup. Ct. 1873); In re Lee’s Case, 46 N. J. Eq. 193 (Prerog. Ct. 1889); In re Rein, 139 N. J. Eq. 122 (Prerog. Ct. 1946). We concur in the finding that this evidence is utterly without countervailing weight. The proofs overwhelmingly negative the existence of undue influence.

For affirmance—Chief Justice Yanderbilt, and Justices Case, Heher, Waoheneeld, Burling and Ackerson—6.

For reversal—None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.2d 736, 2 N.J. 104, 1949 N.J. LEXIS 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-alper-nj-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack