Legal Opinion
In Re Proving the Will of Delmar
New York Court of Appeals
Decided May 25, 1926PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPound, J.
The contest rests solely on the testamentary capacity of testatrix. If the evidence, which is not conflicting except for the opinion of an expert witness who never saw the deceased, permits the triers of fact to draw conflicting inferences on this point, the Appellate Division should not have reversed on the law and directed the probate of the will but should have sent the case back for a new trial. (Hagan v. Sone, 174 N. Y. 317; Middleton v. Whitridge, 213 N. Y. 499, 503; Matter of Burnham, 234 N. Y. 475. And see Matter of Eno, 196 App. Div. 131, 155.) The question for us is, therefore,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Delafield v. . ParishNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Dobie v. . ArmstrongNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Middleton v. . WhitridgeNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- In Re the Probate of the Will of SnellingNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
- In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of EnoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- In Re the Estate of KumstarNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- In re the Estate of CollinsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- In re the Estate of SladeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- In re the Estate of BushAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
- In re FishAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.