Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Seppala

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided November 17, 1933PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Wingate, S.

The answering affidavits herein are utterly insufficient to exculpate the proponent for the unreasonable delay which has occurred in bringing this will on for probate. On the other hand, the precise relief sought in this application cannot be granted, since there is no proceeding by which another proponent can be substituted for one already before the court

A probate proceeding is one in rem (Matter of Meiselman, 138 Misc. 104, 107, and authorities cited), and since the respondent on this application has brought the rem into the court, he is by the nature of things the proponent…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of SpanierNew York Surrogate's Court · 1933
  2. In re the Estate of MeiselmanNew York Surrogate's Court · 1930
  3. In re the Estate of BogstrandNew York Surrogate's Court · 1933

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Brissie v. CraigSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  2. In re the Estate of GellerNew York Surrogate's Court · 1938
  3. In re the Estate of CusimanoNew York Surrogate's Court · 1940
  4. In re the Accounting of MassNew York Surrogate's Court · 1951
  5. In re the Estate of HerleNew York Surrogate's Court · 1940

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API