In re the Estate of Thompson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Thompson

271 A.D.2d 570

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 30, 1946

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 570 (In re the Estate of Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 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 Thompson, 271 A.D.2d 570 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinions

Hill, P. J.

The decree determining that appellant is not the child of John and Joanna Peterson and thus not the sister of decedent Anna Thompson, is sustained only by the testimony, of an interested witness, Van Hoff, and an elderly woman whose memory is faulty and whose testimony is contradictory and not impressive. The family have always treated the appellant as one of the children, have written to her and addressed her as such. The father and mother so stated to a census enumerator. The theory of legitimacy should not be disturbed at so late a date and on evidence so vague. (Matter of Findlay, 253 N. Y. 1; Matter of Matthews, 153 N. Y. 443; Hynes v. McDermott, 91 N. Y. 451; Matter of Perrin, 258 App. Div. 384.)

The decree should be reversed and the prayer of the petition denied, and the appellant’s interest in the estate decreed.

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

Hill, P. J.

The decree determining that appellant is not the child of John and Joanna Peterson and thus not the sister of decedent Anna Thompson, is sustained only by the testimony, of an interested witness, Van Hoff, and an elderly woman whose memory is faulty and whose testimony is contradictory and not impressive. The family have always treated the appellant as one of the children, have written to her and addressed her as such. The father and mother so stated to a census enumerator. The theory of legitimacy should not be disturbed at so late a date and on evidence so vague. (Matter of Findlay, 253 N. Y. 1; Matter of Matthews, 153 N. Y. 443; Hynes v. McDermott, 91 N. Y. 451; Matter of Perrin, 258 App. Div. 384.)

The decree should be reversed and the prayer of the petition denied, and the appellant’s interest in the estate decreed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-thompson-nyappdiv-1946.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack