Legal Opinion
In re the Estate of Walters
New York Surrogate's Court
Decided October 10, 1939PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Howell, S.
Construction is sought of certain provisions of testatrix’s will. She was a layman and prepared and executed the will herself without the benefit of legal advice.
With respect to the legacy of $100 to Mrs. Waddell, it does not appear to be questioned that, she having predeceased the testatrix, the legacy to her lapsed and falls into the residuary estate.
Nor does there seem to be much question with respect to the legacy to John Alsop Davis. The testatrix gave $1,000 each to four named persons, including John Alsop Davis, but, following the legacy to him, he being an infant, she added…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Herzog v. . Title Guarantee Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Bagdon v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Lefevre v. . LefevreNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Kernochan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919
- Kernochan v. . the Farmers' Loan and Trust CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- In re the Construction of the Will of LawlessNew York Surrogate's Court · 1949
- In re the Estate of BurrNew York Surrogate's Court · 1941
- In re the Will of HohnNew York Surrogate's Court · 1943
- In re the Accounting of A. B. PalmerNew York Surrogate's Court · 1957