In re the Probate of the Will of Thoms

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Probate of the Will of Thoms

286 A.D. 1146, 146 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5436

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1955

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 286 A.D. 1146 (In re the Probate of the Will of Thoms) 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 Thoms, 286 A.D. 1146, 146 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5436 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: It appears without question that Janet Thoms Ingersoll, the pseudo-appellant, was declared incompetent to manage herself and her affairs by a court of competent jurisdiction in May, 1944, and that a committee was duly appointed. No claim is made that there has ever been an order declaring competency or restoration to the incompetent of her property and the management thereof. The Surrogate could do nothing but dismiss the petition of said adjudged incompetent. She was without authority or right to institute the proceeding (Matter of Deimer, 274 App. Div. 557) and the attorneys were without authority to appear for her (Matter of Brown, 131 Misc. 420). It follows that said Janet Thoms Ingersoll, as an adjudged incompetent, had no authority to take the appeal herein or to employ attorneys to do so. Technically, the appeal would be subject to dismissal upon motion by the respondent. In the absence of such motion, we deem it proper to affirm the order. All concur. (Appeal from an order of Monroe Surrogate’s Court dismissing the petition for the probate of the alleged ■will of decedent.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball and Wheeler, JJ. [See 1 A D 2d 763.]

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

Memorandum: It appears without question that Janet Thoms Ingersoll, the pseudo-appellant, was declared incompetent to manage herself and her affairs by a court of competent jurisdiction in May, 1944, and that a committee was duly appointed. No claim is made that there has ever been an order declaring competency or restoration to the incompetent of her property and the management thereof. The Surrogate could do nothing but dismiss the petition of said adjudged incompetent. She was without authority or right to institute the proceeding (Matter of Deimer, 274 App. Div. 557) and the attorneys were without authority to appear for her (Matter of Brown, 131 Misc. 420). It follows that said Janet Thoms Ingersoll, as an adjudged incompetent, had no authority to take the appeal herein or to employ attorneys to do so. Technically, the appeal would be subject to dismissal upon motion by the respondent. In the absence of such motion, we deem it proper to affirm the order. All concur. (Appeal from an order of Monroe Surrogate’s Court dismissing the petition for the probate of the alleged ■will of decedent.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball and Wheeler, JJ. [See 1 A D 2d 763.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D. 1146, 146 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-probate-of-the-will-of-thoms-nyappdiv-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack