Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Dittmar

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided December 19, 1934PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Delehanty, S.

The sole distributees of deceased received no actual notice of the proceedings for the probate of his will. They all reside in Germany. They were served only by publication. They apply now to open the probate decree and for leave to file objections to the will. The will heretofore admitted to probate gives all of the estate of deceased to strangers to him in blood.

This court — as is the case with all other courts of record — has undoubted power to vacate a decree procured from it as a result of fraud. It conducted an inquiry to determine whether the proceedings which resulted in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Matter of HendersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
  2. In Re the Transfer Tax Upon the Estate of TownsendNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
  3. In re the Estate of BrayNew York Surrogate's Court · 1932
  4. In re the Estate of SeveranceNew York Surrogate's Court · 1919

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. In re the Probate of the Will of HindersonNew York Surrogate's Court · 1956
  2. In re the Estate of SandowNew York Surrogate's Court · 1960
  3. In re the Estate of CulleyNew York Surrogate's Court · 1942
  4. In re the Estate of HofmannNew York Surrogate's Court · 2001
  5. In re the Probate of the Will of BonesteelNew York Surrogate's Court · 1961

2 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