Lowe v. Taylor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lowe v. Taylor

254 A.D. 755, 4 N.Y.S.2d 237, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7484

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

DecidedMay 13, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D. 755 (Lowe v. Taylor) 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

Lowe v. Taylor, 254 A.D. 755, 4 N.Y.S.2d 237, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7484 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying the application of the petitioners for an order (formerly called order of prohibition) restraining the surrogate of Orange county from proceeding in alleged excess of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. In the proceeding to probate a will, it appears that the testimony of the attesting witnesses is disappointing to proponents, for they are not willing to state that the will was duly published in their presence by the testatrix. This presents no reason why the court should advise the surrogate as to rulings on the admissibility of evidence in the future course of the proceeding. If it eventually turns out that the proponents are aggrieved, their remedy will be by appeal. Neither on the law nor in the exercise of discretion should the order applied for be granted. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Davis, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ.

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

Order denying the application of the petitioners for an order (formerly called order of prohibition) restraining the surrogate of Orange county from proceeding in alleged excess of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. In the proceeding to probate a will, it appears that the testimony of the attesting witnesses is disappointing to proponents, for they are not willing to state that the will was duly published in their presence by the testatrix. This presents no reason why the court should advise the surrogate as to rulings on the admissibility of evidence in the future course of the proceeding. If it eventually turns out that the proponents are aggrieved, their remedy will be by appeal. Neither on the law nor in the exercise of discretion should the order applied for be granted. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Davis, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 755, 4 N.Y.S.2d 237, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowe-v-taylor-nyappdiv-1938.