In re the Estate of Freeman

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

In re the Estate of Freeman

2 N.J. Misc. 786, 1924 N.J. Prerog. Ct. LEXIS 14

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedAugust 16, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 2 N.J. Misc. 786 (In re the Estate of Freeman) 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 Estate of Freeman, 2 N.J. Misc. 786, 1924 N.J. Prerog. Ct. LEXIS 14 (N.J. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Buchanan, Vice-Ordinary.

This is an appeal from, a decree of the Middlesex conntv orphans court, denying probate to a paper-writing (dated July 12th, 1923) offered for probate as the last will and testament of Charles Manning Freeman, deceased, that court having reached the conclusion from a careful consideration of the very voluminous testimony and other evidence that the testator lacked testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the document sub judice.

The facts and the reasons resulting in this conclusion are set forth at length in the opinion filed by Judge Kirkpatrick, and, inasmuch as the conclusion of this court, after reviewing the evidence and proceedings, coincides with that of the orphans court, so far as concerns the point mentioned, thevr need not here be reiterated.

I do not, however, desire to be understood as concurring in the conclusion of the court below that the proponent sustained the burden of proving absence of undue, influence.

The case is one in which the costs of appellant and respondents should be paid from the estate.

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

Buchanan, Vice-Ordinary.

This is an appeal from, a decree of the Middlesex conntv orphans court, denying probate to a paper-writing (dated July 12th, 1923) offered for probate as the last will and testament of Charles Manning Freeman, deceased, that court having reached the conclusion from a careful consideration of the very voluminous testimony and other evidence that the testator lacked testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the document sub judice.

The facts and the reasons resulting in this conclusion are set forth at length in the opinion filed by Judge Kirkpatrick, and, inasmuch as the conclusion of this court, after reviewing the evidence and proceedings, coincides with that of the orphans court, so far as concerns the point mentioned, thevr need not here be reiterated.

I do not, however, desire to be understood as concurring in the conclusion of the court below that the proponent sustained the burden of proving absence of undue, influence.

The case is one in which the costs of appellant and respondents should be paid from the estate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 N.J. Misc. 786, 1924 N.J. Prerog. Ct. LEXIS 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-freeman-njsuperctappdiv-1924.