Legal Opinion

In re Proving the Last Will & Testament of Van Benschoten

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided December 15, 1918PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Proceedikq upon the probate of a will.

1Opinion of the Court

Whitbeck, S.

This is a contested probate. The contestant withdraws demand for jury trial and consents to the submission of all questions to the surrogate. It appears from the evidence that the will is holographic. It has no attestation clause. Directly and about an inch under the signature of the testator appears the signature of the witness Emeline Jeffers and directly beneath her signature appears the signature of the other witness Etta Jeffers.

The witness Etta Jeffers testified that on the occasion when she signed her name to the instrument offered for probate the testator, who was then…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. In Re the Probate of a Paper Propounded as the Last Will & Testament of TurellNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
  2. In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of MarleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
  3. In re Proving the Will of StockwellNew York Surrogate's Court · 1896
  4. In re McDougall's WillNew York Supreme Court · 1895
  5. In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of AbelNew York Surrogate's Court · 1909

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In re the Probate of the Will of PulvermacherAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952
  2. In re the Estate of AmicoNew York Surrogate's Court · 1966
  3. In re the Probate of the Will of ParkerNew York Surrogate's Court · 1927

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API