In re the Estate of Fox

9 Misc. 661, 30 N.Y.S. 835, 62 N.Y. St. Rep. 412
CourtNew York Surrogate's Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 9 Misc. 661 (In re the Estate of Fox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Surrogate's Court 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 Fox, 9 Misc. 661, 30 N.Y.S. 835, 62 N.Y. St. Rep. 412 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Opinion

Sherman, S.

The testatrix died at about eleven o’clock on January 12,1892, leaving no real estate, but personal property, as alleged in the petition, of the value of about $600, and leaving no husband or next of kin and no heirs. Her former husband, Martin Fox, died intestate about seventeen years before, leaving by his first wife two sons, residing in Ohio, and one daughter, said Honora Fox, the contestant, residing in Jamestown, N. Y.

Warren D. Shaw ana wife conveyed to Martin.and Bridget Fox, for the consideration of $150, by deed dated May 14, 1863, about one-quarter of an acre of land in two adjoining village lots on the “ Warren road,” so called, leading from the. then village of Jamestown to Warren, Pa., and said Bridget [663]*663Fox, after the death of her husband, Martin Fox, sold and conveyed the same land on ¡November 18, 1890, to John Wood and Martha, his wife, for the consideration of $300, reserving, however, the use and possession of the north half of said premises and also subject to the payment by said Wood of the unpaid taxes thereon, same being a part of the consideration, in addition to the $300, and the amount of said taxes was not proved.

The north half of said premises, of which the use was reserved to the said Bridget Fox during her life, had a small house or shanty, twelve by sixteen feet, thereon, of little value, with two rooms, which she occupied at the time when said deed was made and up to the time of her death, on January 12, 1892.

Said Warren D. Shaw and wife conveyed to said Bridget Fox another village lot, adjoining the above two lots, on April 20, 1860, when she was a single woman, unmarried, and after her marriage to Martin Fox, and after his death, she conveyed the same to John Davidson, who was a witness to her alleged will here contested, for $600, paid down.

The decedent signed the instrument propounded as her last will, by making her mark, at about four o’clock in the afternoon of the same day she died, being about seven hours before her death, and by such will, by its terms, she devised and bequeathed to the Rev. Richard Coyle, rector of the Catholic church in the city of Jamestown, all her real and personal estate, subject to the payment of her debts and burial expenses, and appointed said Rev. Richard Coyle sole executor thereof, and revoking all former wills by her made, and the same was witnessed by James I. Fowler and said John Davidson, both of Jamestown, N. Y.

¡Notice of probate of such alleged will was duly served upon the attorney-general of the state and the county treasurer of said county, neither of whom appeared in proceedings on probate.

The above-named Honora Fox made answer contesting the will, upon the grounds that the testatrix was of unsound mind [664]*664when she signed it, and that she was induced to sign it hy the Undue influence of said Rev. Richard Coyle and others.

It appeared from the evidence on part of the contestant that the decedent had, a few minutes past eight o’clock on the evening of January 11, 1892, signed .another instrument purporting to he her will, which was witnessed by Margaret Donlon, wife of John Donlon, O. W. Creal and Mary Higgins, and such alleged will purported to give, devise and bequeath all her property, both real and personal, to the above-named contestant, Honora Fox, commonly called “Nora,” and appointing said Margaret Donlon executrix thereof.

The learned counsel for the proponent claimed that the deed of this property by Warren D. Shaw and wife, dated May 14, 1863, to Martin Fox and Bridget Fox, his then wife, conveyed the property to them as joint tenants, and that upon his death she became the owner of the property in fee as his survivor.

The learned counsel for the contestant claimed that Martin and Bridget Fox were only tenants in common, and that upon his death the property descended to his heirs, Honora, William and Michael Fox, children by his first wife.

I hold and decide that under the common-law rule applicable to this case, that when land is conveyed to husband and wife they do not take as tenants in common or as joint tenants, but each becomes seized of the entirety per tout and not per my, and that upon the death of either the whole descends to the survivor. Bertles v. Nunan, 92 N. Y. 152, overruling Meeker v. Wright, 76 id. 262; Zorntlein v. Bram, 100 id. 12.

I hold that upon the death of Martin Fox intestate, his wife Bridget became seized in fee of absolute title to the entire premises.

James I. Fowler, attorney for the petitioner and one of the witnesses to the will of January 12, 1892, testified that he drew the will in question; that he went down to the little house of the decedent in the afternoon of the day the will was drawn; that he went into the room up to the bed and asked Mrs. Fox if she knew him, and she reached out her hand and [665]*665.gave an expression of “Yes,” shook hands; that he asked her, he thought, if she wanted her will made; that she said Yes; that he asked her to whom she wanted her property left; that he called in Mr. Davidson and then asked her again and she said, “Father Coyle;” that he read over to her the will which he had drawn and asked her if that was right; that she replied that it was; that he then asked her, he thought, if he should sign her name, that he knew she could not write, and ■she said, “ Yes;” that he sat at the table and wrote her name .and told her to sign by making her mark, which she did; that he then asked her if she acknowledged that to be her last will and testament, to which she replied, “ Yes;” that he then asked her if she desired Mr. Davidson and himself to act .as witnesses; that he and the other witness, Davidson, then .signed their respective names; that he asked her if he should take the will or what she would have done with it; that she said she desired that he should take it; that he thought she was perhaps eighty years of age or about that; that he thought she was of sound mind and memory and with full knowledge •of what she was doing ; that the will Avas then in the same shape that it was the day it Avas drawn.

On his cross-examination by Mr. Sessions the witness testified : That he went up there Avitli the idea of making the will .in the forenoon; that Mr. Davidson requested him to go up, and that Mr. Davidson told him the old lady had sent down for him to come up and draw her Avill; that this was on ■January 12, 1892; that he went up there and made inquiries regarding her health that morning and rapped at the door on the outside; that Mrs. Margaret Donlon came to the door and .stepped out and closed it, and that he told her that he was there to draw Mrs. Fox’s will, and that she made some reply which he did not understand; that he asked her, “ Isn’t Mrs. Fox able to ? ” and that she said, “ Oh, no ; ” that she was not in her right mind and could not see anybody, and some other •expressions ; that he said, “ Why, I understood she sent for me; ” that Mrs. Donlon said her -will was made; that he said, [666]*666“'Who made it ? ” and she said, “ She had a lawyer; ” that he saw that she was not inclined to admit him into the house; that he came down and met Mr. Davidson, and witness said to Mr. Davidson that they told him that she had a will and that there was no use of staying and that he went home ; that he was not satisfied that she was not in a condition to make a will.

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

Related

Kass v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
252 A.D. 888 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 Misc. 661, 30 N.Y.S. 835, 62 N.Y. St. Rep. 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-fox-nysurct-1894.