In re the Probate of the Will of Henry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Probate of the Will of Henry

278 A.D. 1015, 106 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5525

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

DecidedJuly 11, 1951

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D. 1015 (In re the Probate of the Will of Henry) 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 Henry, 278 A.D. 1015, 106 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5525 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree insofar as appealed from affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: While we think that the Surrogate erred in striking out certain evidence on the ground that it was prohibited under section 347 of the Civil Practice Act, we reach the conclusion that such evidence, added to the other proof, fails to establish that the lost will was in existence at the time of decedent’s death or was fraudulently destroyed in his lifetime. (Matter of Staiger, 243 N. V. 468; Matter of Kennedy, 167 N. V. 163; Matter of Robinson, 257 App. Div. 405; Throckmorton v. Holt, 180 U. S. 552.) While the first hearing, at which one subscribing witness was examined, might be construed as a preliminary examination pursuant to section 141 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, the subsequent hearings were proceedings for the probate of the lost or destroyed will and petitioners moved to dispense with the testimony of the other subscribing witness and to admit the will to probate. On this record we cannot hold that the proceedings were preliminary under section 141. All concur. (Appeal from part of a decree denying probate to the alleged last will of decedent, and holding that the alleged will was destroyed by decedent during his lifetime.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ. [See post, p. 1043.]

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

Decree insofar as appealed from affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: While we think that the Surrogate erred in striking out certain evidence on the ground that it was prohibited under section 347 of the Civil Practice Act, we reach the conclusion that such evidence, added to the other proof, fails to establish that the lost will was in existence at the time of decedent’s death or was fraudulently destroyed in his lifetime. (Matter of Staiger, 243 N. V. 468; Matter of Kennedy, 167 N. V. 163; Matter of Robinson, 257 App. Div. 405; Throckmorton v. Holt, 180 U. S. 552.) While the first hearing, at which one subscribing witness was examined, might be construed as a preliminary examination pursuant to section 141 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, the subsequent hearings were proceedings for the probate of the lost or destroyed will and petitioners moved to dispense with the testimony of the other subscribing witness and to admit the will to probate. On this record we cannot hold that the proceedings were preliminary under section 141. All concur. (Appeal from part of a decree denying probate to the alleged last will of decedent, and holding that the alleged will was destroyed by decedent during his lifetime.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ. [See post, p. 1043.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D. 1015, 106 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-probate-of-the-will-of-henry-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack