In re the Probate of the Will of Broggelwirth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Probate of the Will of Broggelwirth

283 A.D. 727, 127 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5086

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D. 727 (In re the Probate of the Will of Broggelwirth) 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 Will of Broggelwirth, 283 A.D. 727, 127 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5086 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to probate a will, objections were filed that the testator during his lifetime revoked the instrument offered for probate. The Surrogate dismissed the objections and admitted the will to probate. Contestants appeal from the decree entered thereon. Decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County, unanimously affirmed, with costs. The question of revocation is considered a preliminary matter to be decided by the court without a jury as a matter of law. It involves the application of the provisions of section 34 of the Decedent Estate Law. (Matter of Tremain, 257 App. Div. 996, affd. 282 N. Y. 485; Matter of Cook, 244 N. Y. 63; Matter of Erlanger, 136 Mise. 784, affd. 229 App. Div. 778; Matter of White, 106 Mise. 210; Matter of Fehringer, 183 Mise. 438; Matter of Coen, N. Y. L. J., Oct. 8, 1953, p. 693, col. 5.) The evidence was convincing that no duplicate original of the will had been executed and that the document offered by the contestants was an unexecuted typewritten copy of the instrument offered for probate. Although the testator may have intended to make a new will he did not do so. The revocation provisions of section 34 of the Decedent Estate Law were not complied with. Present — Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Murphy, JJ.

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

In a proceeding to probate a will, objections were filed that the testator during his lifetime revoked the instrument offered for probate. The Surrogate dismissed the objections and admitted the will to probate. Contestants appeal from the decree entered thereon. Decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County, unanimously affirmed, with costs. The question of revocation is considered a preliminary matter to be decided by the court without a jury as a matter of law. It involves the application of the provisions of section 34 of the Decedent Estate Law. (Matter of Tremain, 257 App. Div. 996, affd. 282 N. Y. 485; Matter of Cook, 244 N. Y. 63; Matter of Erlanger, 136 Mise. 784, affd. 229 App. Div. 778; Matter of White, 106 Mise. 210; Matter of Fehringer, 183 Mise. 438; Matter of Coen, N. Y. L. J., Oct. 8, 1953, p. 693, col. 5.) The evidence was convincing that no duplicate original of the will had been executed and that the document offered by the contestants was an unexecuted typewritten copy of the instrument offered for probate. Although the testator may have intended to make a new will he did not do so. The revocation provisions of section 34 of the Decedent Estate Law were not complied with. Present — Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Murphy, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 727, 127 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-probate-of-the-will-of-broggelwirth-nyappdiv-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack