Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re the Accounting of Marks

New York Court of Appeals

Decided March 6, 1941Published

1DissentDesmond, J.

When first offered, this will could not have been probated without the production and examination of the two subscribing witnesses as both were at that time within the State and competent and able to testify. (Surr. Ct. Act, § 141.) The legacy to each witness was, therefore, void. (Dec. Est. Law, § 27; Caw v. Robertson, 5 N. Y. 125.) The legacy to the subscribing witness Weldon could not be validated by her own act of leaving the State of New York until after the will was probated, notwithstanding that the will was eventually probated without her testimony in accordance with the provisions of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Caw v. . RobertsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1851
  2. In Re the Accounting of MarksNew York Court of Appeals · 1941
  3. Jackson ex dem. Denniston v. DennistonNew York Supreme Court · 1809

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

Powered by the Exa API