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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

264 A.D. 936, 36 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5419

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D. 936 (In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of Millens) 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 Millens, 264 A.D. 936, 36 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5419 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the petitioners in the above-entitled proceeding from an order and decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Ulster County denying the probate of ah alleged lost or destroyed will and dismissing the petition, with costs to the respondents. The petition was under section 143 of the Surrogate’s Court Act. The surrogate determined that said deceased did make and execute in her life a paper or writing in conformity with the statutes of the State of New York as and for her last will and testament which was dated in the month of November or December, 1939, and that said paper was in the possession of the said deceased prior to her death, but could not be found after her death. The proof of the existence of the alleged will subsequent to the death of the deceased falls short of being clear and convincing. The proponents failed to overcome the presumption [937]*937that the testatrix destroyed the will during her lifetime for the purpose of revoking it. Order and decree of the surrogate affirmed, with costs to defendants payable out of the estate. Crapser, Bliss, Heffernan and Schenek, JJ., concur; Hill, P. J., dissents.

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

Appeal by the petitioners in the above-entitled proceeding from an order and decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Ulster County denying the probate of ah alleged lost or destroyed will and dismissing the petition, with costs to the respondents. The petition was under section 143 of the Surrogate’s Court Act. The surrogate determined that said deceased did make and execute in her life a paper or writing in conformity with the statutes of the State of New York as and for her last will and testament which was dated in the month of November or December, 1939, and that said paper was in the possession of the said deceased prior to her death, but could not be found after her death. The proof of the existence of the alleged will subsequent to the death of the deceased falls short of being clear and convincing. The proponents failed to overcome the presumption [937]*937that the testatrix destroyed the will during her lifetime for the purpose of revoking it. Order and decree of the surrogate affirmed, with costs to defendants payable out of the estate. Crapser, Bliss, Heffernan and Schenek, JJ., concur; Hill, P. J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 936, 36 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-probate-of-the-last-will-testament-of-millens-nyappdiv-1942.