In re the Estate of Diament

103 A. 199, 88 N.J. Eq. 552, 3 Stock. 552, 1918 N.J. LEXIS 306
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedMarch 4, 1918
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 103 A. 199 (In re the Estate of Diament) 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 Diament, 103 A. 199, 88 N.J. Eq. 552, 3 Stock. 552, 1918 N.J. LEXIS 306 (N.J. 1918).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Swayze, J.

The question arises on the offer to probate the will and codicils of Charles G. Diament. The orphans court admitted to probate the will and the two earliest codicils and rejected the last codicil.

The prerogative court affirmed the decree.

[553]*553The last codicil was not produced. "VVe are satisfied, as the lower courts were, that the testator destroyed this codicil with intent to revoke it. The question presented is what effect this had upon the will and the two earlier codicils. The case was treated in the lower courts and argued here as if it were a case of the revocation of an earlier by a later will and the subsequent cancellation of the latter. Such is not the situation.

A codicil is so far from being a revocation of any existing will and codicils that it is a republication thereof except as altered and frequently, as in the first codicil to the present will, ratifies and confirms the former document except so far as altered. Republication by a codicil was most important before the statute provided that a will might pass real estate acquired after its execution. How important this effect of a codicil still is may be seen by a glance at Jarman’s chapter on Republication. 1 Jarm. (R. & T.) 362.

We have, then, instead of the somewhat difficult question of the effect of the cancellation of a later will upon an earlier one, the comparatively simple question of the construction of a will thrice republished, and codicils republished, one of them once and one of them twice.

We may treat the case as if all three codicils were actually before us with the last duly canceled by the testator. The result is simple. The third codicil must be rejected even as the canceled portions of Erothingham’s will were rejected. Frothingham’s Case, 76 N. J. Eq. 331.

Let the decree be affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner — 13. For reversal — None.

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

Related

Kennedy v. Mockler
118 A.2d 93 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1955)
Creech v. McVaugh
54 A.2d 443 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1947)
Gerber v. Gulick
45 A.2d 129 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1946)
Heise v. Earle
35 A.2d 880 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1944)
In Re Smalley
24 A.2d 515 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1942)
In re Estate of Block
190 A. 315 (Essex County Surrogate's Court, 1937)
Bohny v. Associated Dyeing & Printing Corp.
171 A. 133 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
103 A. 199, 88 N.J. Eq. 552, 3 Stock. 552, 1918 N.J. LEXIS 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-diament-nj-1918.