Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Gorrell

Essex County Surrogate's Court

Decided February 10, 1941PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Clapp, A. M.

This application for probate comes before the Orphans Court because of doubts arising on the face of the holographic papers propounded. From the facts in the case five questions emerge.

The first question is whether the testatrix acknowledged the making of her signature. The attestation clause declares *169she signed the will in the presence of the witnesses. Bnt in fact she did not; for when first she showed them the testamentary papers they saw her signature already thereon. The witnesses substantially agree that her words to them then were that she wanted them “to witness her will.”…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Throckmorton v. HoltSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
  2. Maginn's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  3. State v. ThomasSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
  4. Lacey v. DobbsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1901
  5. In re the Probate of the Will of FrothinghamSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1909

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In Re ParkerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1957
  2. In Re Estate of DaniellyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1951
  3. In re the Estate of TaylorNew York County Court, Essex County · 1953
  4. In Re ShulerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1957

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

Powered by the Exa API