In re the Probate of Last Will & Testament of Sullestad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Probate of Last Will & Testament of Sullestad

109 A.D. 909, 95 N.Y.S. 1162

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 109 A.D. 909 (In re the Probate of Last Will & Testament of Sullestad) 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 Probate of Last Will & Testament of Sullestad, 109 A.D. 909, 95 N.Y.S. 1162 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree of Surrogate’s Court reversed on the facts, with costs new questions of fact are ordered to be tried by a jury at a Trial Term of the Supreme Court to be held in and for the county of Monroe in the month of January, 1906, viz.: 1. Was the deceased at the time said instrument purports to have been executed, to wit, the 2d day of June, 1903, possessed of sufficient testamentary capacity to make a valid last will and testament? 2. Was the execution of said [910]*910instrument by said deceased procured by fraud or undue influence practiced upon said Carolitie Sullestad? McLennan, P. J., and Nash, J.', voted for reversal upon the ground that the decision of the surrogate was against the weight of the evidence; Hiscock, J., voted for reversal on the authority of Matter of Burtis (107 App. Div. 51; 94 N. Y. Supp. 961); Spring and Williams, JJ., voted for affirmance.

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

Decree of Surrogate’s Court reversed on the facts, with costs new questions of fact are ordered to be tried by a jury at a Trial Term of the Supreme Court to be held in and for the county of Monroe in the month of January, 1906, viz.: 1. Was the deceased at the time said instrument purports to have been executed, to wit, the 2d day of June, 1903, possessed of sufficient testamentary capacity to make a valid last will and testament? 2. Was the execution of said [910]*910instrument by said deceased procured by fraud or undue influence practiced upon said Carolitie Sullestad? McLennan, P. J., and Nash, J.', voted for reversal upon the ground that the decision of the surrogate was against the weight of the evidence; Hiscock, J., voted for reversal on the authority of Matter of Burtis (107 App. Div. 51; 94 N. Y. Supp. 961); Spring and Williams, JJ., voted for affirmance.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D. 909, 95 N.Y.S. 1162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-probate-of-last-will-testament-of-sullestad-nyappdiv-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack