In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of Lawlor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of Lawlor

86 A.D. 527, 83 N.Y.S. 726, 1903 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2408

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 86 A.D. 527 (In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of Lawlor) 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 the Last Will & Testament of Lawlor, 86 A.D. 527, 83 N.Y.S. 726, 1903 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenks, J. :

The affidavit of the testator, made on July 23,1902, was not evi. ■dehce to establish that she did not make the will dated June 4,1902. (Jackson v. Kniffen, 2 Johns. 31,35 ; Waterman v. Whitney, 11 N. [529]*529Y. 157; Elghmy v. People, 79 id. 546 ; Marx v. McGlynn, 88 id. 357,374 ; Matter of Kennedy, 167 id. 163, 172 ; Matter of Woodward, Id. 29, 30.) It is quite evident from the opinion that the learned surrogate considered this affidavit as a cogent piece of evidence on that question. The exception was well taken, and the decree must be reversed.

Goodrich, P. J., Bartlett, Woodward and Hooker, JJ., concurred.

Decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Kings county reversed.

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

Jenks, J. :

The affidavit of the testator, made on July 23,1902, was not evi. ■dehce to establish that she did not make the will dated June 4,1902. (Jackson v. Kniffen, 2 Johns. 31,35 ; Waterman v. Whitney, 11 N. [529]*529Y. 157; Elghmy v. People, 79 id. 546 ; Marx v. McGlynn, 88 id. 357,374 ; Matter of Kennedy, 167 id. 163, 172 ; Matter of Woodward, Id. 29, 30.) It is quite evident from the opinion that the learned surrogate considered this affidavit as a cogent piece of evidence on that question. The exception was well taken, and the decree must be reversed.

Goodrich, P. J., Bartlett, Woodward and Hooker, JJ., concurred.

Decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Kings county reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D. 527, 83 N.Y.S. 726, 1903 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-probate-of-the-last-will-testament-of-lawlor-nyappdiv-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack