In re the Probate of the Will of Oram

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Probate of the Will of Oram

281 A.D. 938

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D. 938 (In re the Probate of the Will of Oram) 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 Oram, 281 A.D. 938 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Albany County, which admitted to probate an instrument purporting to be the last will and testament of decedent. Several objections to probate were filed. Contestant finally withdrew all but two. The first question left was whether decedent was under restraint; and the second was whether the will was procured by fraud, deceit and undue influence. A jury was impaneled and at the conclusion of testimony the Surrogate directed the jury to answer both questions in the negative. Appellant contends here that the testimony raised triable issues of fact which should have been submitted to the jury. Decree unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Poster, P. J., Brewster, Bergan, Halpern and Imrie, JJ. [See post, p. 1059.]

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

Appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Albany County, which admitted to probate an instrument purporting to be the last will and testament of decedent. Several objections to probate were filed. Contestant finally withdrew all but two. The first question left was whether decedent was under restraint; and the second was whether the will was procured by fraud, deceit and undue influence. A jury was impaneled and at the conclusion of testimony the Surrogate directed the jury to answer both questions in the negative. Appellant contends here that the testimony raised triable issues of fact which should have been submitted to the jury. Decree unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Poster, P. J., Brewster, Bergan, Halpern and Imrie, JJ. [See post, p. 1059.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-probate-of-the-will-of-oram-nyappdiv-1953.