In Re the Probate of the Will of Whipple

62 N.E.2d 76, 294 N.Y. 292, 1945 N.Y. LEXIS 804
New York Court of Appeals·Decided May 24, 1945·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It was within the power of the Appellate Division, in the exercise of its discretion, to reverse the decree of the Surrogate upon the ground that, in its opinion, the verdict was contrary to and against the clear weight of the evidence. The Appellate Division was without power, however, to direct a contrary verdict in view of the fact that the evidence was not wholly insufficient in point of law to sustain the jury’s verdict. (See Blum v. Fresh Grown Preserve Cory., 292 N. Y. 241, 245-246.)

The order of the Appellate Division and the decree of the Surrogate’s Court should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs in this court to abide the event.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Thacher and Dye, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.

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

In Re the Probate of the Will of Whipple, 62 N.E.2d 76, 294 N.Y. 292, 1945 N.Y. LEXIS 804 (N.Y. 1945).

62 N.E.2d 76 (In Re the Probate of the Will of Whipple) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lewis v. Stevenson
275 A.D.2d 655 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1949)
In re the Probate of the Will of Horton
272 A.D.2d 646 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1947)
In re the Probate of the Will of Whipple
269 A.D. 729 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1945)