In re the Probate of the Will of Quinn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Probate of the Will of Quinn

282 A.D. 1049, 126 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5788

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 282 A.D. 1049 (In re the Probate of the Will of Quinn) 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 Quinn, 282 A.D. 1049, 126 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding for the probate of a will, the contestant appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, County of Queens, entered on a directed verdict, admitting the will to probate. Decree reversed on the law and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event, payable out of the estate. The testimony as to the presence of the testator in the Municipal Court at the time when the proponent claims he was in the office of the attorney executing the will raised an issue as to its due execution. It was for the jury to say whether the deceased was present at the time the witnesses placed their signatures on the paper. However, upon the proof in this record the Surrogate could properly direct the jury to find there was testamentary capacity and a lack of undue influence. Nolan, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MacCrate

and Schmidt, JJ., concur. [See 283 App. Div. 670.]

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

In a proceeding for the probate of a will, the contestant appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, County of Queens, entered on a directed verdict, admitting the will to probate. Decree reversed on the law and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event, payable out of the estate. The testimony as to the presence of the testator in the Municipal Court at the time when the proponent claims he was in the office of the attorney executing the will raised an issue as to its due execution. It was for the jury to say whether the deceased was present at the time the witnesses placed their signatures on the paper. However, upon the proof in this record the Surrogate could properly direct the jury to find there was testamentary capacity and a lack of undue influence. Nolan, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MacCrate

and Schmidt, JJ., concur. [See 283 App. Div. 670.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 1049, 126 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-probate-of-the-will-of-quinn-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack