Jackson ex dem. Brown v. Betts

Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

Jackson ex dem. Brown v. Betts

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 560

Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors·Decided July 1, 1799·Published

Opinion

Chancellor Walworth, in his opinion, maintains that the declarations of the testator, in his last illness, are admissible to show that the testator had destroyed it, or that it was still in existence, sed qu. ; but that evidence of the relative situation, in point of property, of the testator’s children, is inadmissible in support of the presumption of the revocation of a will, where there is no change in the circumstances of the children, between the making and alleged revocation. Judgment reversed.

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

Chancellor Walworth, in his opinion, maintains that the declarations of the testator, in his last illness, are admissible to show that the testator had destroyed it, or that it was still in existence, sed qu. ; but that evidence of the relative situation, in point of property, of the testator’s children, is inadmissible in support of the presumption of the revocation of a will, where there is no change in the circumstances of the children, between the making and alleged revocation. Judgment reversed.

Jackson ex dem. Brown v. Betts, 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 560 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1799).

Pincite

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 560 (Jackson ex dem. Brown v. Betts) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.