Legal Opinion
In Re the Probate of the Will of Burnham
New York Court of Appeals
Decided January 16, 1923PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPound, J.
We agree with the learned Appellate Division that, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Manning, J. (201 App. Div. 621), the contestant adduced no evidence on the trial before the surrogate -that c; reasonably to satisfy' a jury that testatrix was not of sound and disposing mind and memory when she executed the paper offered for probate. (Matter of Case, 214 N. Y. 199, 203.)
The appellant contends that the Appellate' Division had no power to grant a final judgment for the reason that the proponent made no motion for the direction of a verdict on the question of testamentary capacity,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Matter of CaseNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Middleton v. . WhitridgeNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of EnoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
- Hagan v. . SoneNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of BurnhamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- In re the Estate of WebbNew York Surrogate's Court · 1923
- Bank of the United States v. ManheimNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
- In Re Proving the Will of DelmarNew York Court of Appeals · 1926
- In re OrrellNew York Surrogate's Court · 1929
- Sheehan v. CoffeyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.