In re the Estate of Rothstein

133 Misc. 547, 233 N.Y.S. 235, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 676
CourtNew York Surrogate's Court
DecidedJanuary 10, 1929
StatusPublished

This text of 133 Misc. 547 (In re the Estate of Rothstein) 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 Rothstein, 133 Misc. 547, 233 N.Y.S. 235, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 676 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1929).

Opinion

O’Brien, S.

Three applications have been made by Maurice F. Cantor, as follows:

(1) That the determination be made that Maurice F. Cantor is not a subscribing witness ” of testator’s will; (2) that the order of this court requiring the examination of Maurice F. Cantor as a subscribing witness ” be vacated, and (3) that paragraphs 6th, 7th and 8th of the contestants’ objections to the probate of testator’s will be stricken from said objections.

These applications are disposed of as follows:

(1) On the 9th page of testator’s will Maurice F. Cantor’s name appears in handwriting on the lower left-hand side placed closely to a cross on the right-hand side which had been penned on the paper with the word “ His ” above the cross, and the word Mark ” below it. On the 10th and last page of said paper there are penned two names of witnesses, viz., E. F. Love, residing at Hotel Grenoble, [548]*548New York city, and M. E. Goerdel, residing at 60 West Ninety-second street, New York city. These two signatures are placed after the attestation clause, which reads as follows: “ Signed, sealed, published and declared by the said testator as and for his last will and testament, in the presence of us and each of us, who in his presence and in the presence of each other at his request, have hereunto subscribed our names as witnesses thereof of the day and year last above mentioned.”

I find that Maurice F. Cantor is not a “ subscribing witness ” of testator’s will. This determination is based upon the following considerations: (a) The term subscribing witness ” has a clear and certain meaning as to which all the authorities are in agreement.

Thus, Words and Phrases Judicially Defined (Vol. 7, p. 6733) defines the term as follows: “ A ‘ subscribing witness ’ is one who was present when the instrument was executed, and who at the time, at the request or with the assent of the party, subscribed his name to it as a witness of the execution.”

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (3d Rev.) gives the definition as follows: “ One who subscribes his name to a writing in order to be able at a future time to prove its due execution. An attesting witness. In order to make a good subscribing witness, it is requisite that he should sign his name to the instrument himself, at the time of its execution, and at the request or with the assent of the party; Hollenback v. Fleming, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 303; 11 M. & W. 168;

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

Related

In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of Sizer
129 A.D. 7 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
133 Misc. 547, 233 N.Y.S. 235, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-rothstein-nysurct-1929.