Legal Opinion
In re the Probate of the Will of Kreutzburg
New York Surrogate's Court
Decided November 1, 1945PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McG-arey, S.
This motion focuses attention upon a problem about which there seems to be considerable confusion among *996the legal profession. The problem is the right of one party to a proceeding to take by deposition his own testimony or that of any other party which is material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of the action. That right is granted by section 288 of the Civil Practice Act, the provisions of which are made applicable to proceedings in the Surrogate’s Court by section 316 of the Surrogate’s Court Act.
The problem most frequently arises in contested probate proceedings…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Public National Bank v. National City BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1933
- In re the Estate of MullinNew York Surrogate's Court · 1932
- In re the Estate of FrankNew York Surrogate's Court · 1937
- In re the Estate of HeughesNew York Surrogate's Court · 1932
- In re the Estate of ChinskyNew York Surrogate's Court · 1934
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- In re the Probate of the Will of CarllNew York Surrogate's Court · 1951
- In re the Probate of the Will of VeederNew York Surrogate's Court · 1957
- In re the Estate of GorenNew York Surrogate's Court · 1952
- In re the Probate of the Will of EschenNew York Surrogate's Court · 1959
- In re the Probate of the Will of NugentNew York Surrogate's Court · 1956