Moore v. Moore
New York Surrogate's Court
I. The testatrix, at the date of the execution of the will, was not of sound and disposing mind and memory. II. The will has not been proved to have been duly executed. (2 R. S., 63, § 40.) 1st. It was not declared by Mrs. Moore to be her last will and testament, in the presence of two witnesses. 2d. Neither of the witnesses, Mr. and Mrs. Searle, were requested by the testatrix to witness the same.
Read the full summary
I. The testatrix, at the date of the execution of the will, was not of sound and disposing mind and memory. II. The will has not been proved to have been duly executed. (2 R. S., 63, § 40.) 1st. It was not declared by Mrs. Moore to be her last will and testament, in the presence of two witnesses. 2d. Neither of the witnesses, Mr. and Mrs. Searle, were requested by the testatrix to witness the same. The only request for them to do so was from Alfred Moore, the beneficiary legatee, and not in the presence of the testatrix. Both swore positively that the testatrix made no request to them of any…
1Opinion of the Court
The Surrogate.
The first question that arises in this case is, whether the will was executed in the mode prescribed by statute. All the witnesses testify to the subscription of the testatrix in their presence, and their attestation in her" presence. One of them, Mr. Searle, on his direct examination said, that Mrs. Moore acknowledged it as her will, and requested the witnesses to attest it. On his cross-examination he stated that when he went into the room Alfred Moore and Mr. Sandford said they wished him to sign his name—the precise words used he did not recollect —no one else spoke to his…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Bundy v. McKnightIndiana Supreme Court · 1874
- Lee v. DillNew York Supreme Court · 1860
- Mairs v. FreemanNew York Surrogate's Court · 1877
- Cornwell v. RikerNew York Surrogate's Court · 1884
- Julke v. AdamNew York Surrogate's Court · 1863
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.