Meehan v. Rourke
New York Surrogate's Court
I. The will is improperly attested. Witnesses must “ sign their names! Stat. 29, Ch. II., requires testator to sign, and witnesses to “ attest and subscribe.” In Harrison vs. Harrison, 8 Vesey, 185, and referred to in 8 Adolphus & Ellis, 94, the Chancellor decided a mark a good attestation, because the “ the word sign did not apply to witness! The case in 5 Johnson, p. 144, was attested by initials.
Read the full summary
I. The will is improperly attested. Witnesses must “ sign their names! Stat. 29, Ch. II., requires testator to sign, and witnesses to “ attest and subscribe.” In Harrison vs. Harrison, 8 Vesey, 185, and referred to in 8 Adolphus & Ellis, 94, the Chancellor decided a mark a good attestation, because the “ the word sign did not apply to witness! The case in 5 Johnson, p. 144, was attested by initials. Jarman regards it, even under the English statute, at least improper, in the advanced state of education. (1 Jarman, 73.) II. The language of the Statute 29, Ch. II., has been adopted in many…
1Opinion of the Court
The Surrogate. The decedent was a widow woman, between fifty and sixty years of age, and died on Thursday, February 5th, 1852, at the house of Mrs. Swift, where she had been boarding for nearly two years. Her disease was typhus fever, with which she was attacked eight or ten days before her decease. The will disposed of her property as follows:—To her sister Susan, $700; to Mrs. Swift, the wife of a cousin, $200, in addition to $200 acknowledged to be due to her; to Catherine Hagan, a second cousin, $150; Mary Hagan, $50; Arthur Hagan, $100 ; Bridget Hagan, $30 ; Patrick Minor, a friend, $50,…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Lane v. WalkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Scott v. SeaverWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Barnard v. HeydrickNew York Supreme Court · 1866
- Morris v. KniffinNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of JacobsNew York Surrogate's Court · 1911
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.