Legal Opinion
In re the Estate of Krup
New York Surrogate's Court
Decided March 15, 1940PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Wingate, S.
No serious contention was advanced that the holographic document dated October 27, 1939, was not duly executed as a will by a competent and unconstrained person. It is obviously testamentary in character and is, therefore, entitled to probate and will be admitted accordingly. (Matter of Davis, 182 N, Y. 468, 474, 475; Matter of Higgins, 264 id. 226, 229; Matter of Webb, 122 Misc. 129, 133; affd., 208 App. Div 793; Matter of Mortensen, 157 Misc. 717, 722; Matter of Strickland, 172 id. 976, 977, and precedents cited.)
*633Since the court has acceded to the request of the parties that the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- In re Brooklyn Trust Co.New York Surrogate's Court · 1929
- In Re the Accounting of Brooklyn Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1930
- In re the Estate of WeissmannNew York Surrogate's Court · 1930
- In re the Estate of WeilNew York Surrogate's Court · 1934
- In re McGowanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- In Re Heazle's EstateIdaho Supreme Court · 1952
- In re the Probate of the Will of McAllisterNew York Surrogate's Court · 1955
- In re the Estate of KenneallyNew York Surrogate's Court · 1988