Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Felenstein

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided February 15, 1932PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Foley, S.

The contestant seeks an examination of all three subscribing witnesses to the will. Her counsel duly served a written demand for such examination. Two of the subscribing witnesses were produced by the proponent. They were laymen. The third subscribing witness whom the proponent refused to produce for examination is an attorney and apparently was the draftsman of the will. Counsel for the proponent relies upon a highly technical construction of section 141 of the Surrogate’s Court Act which relates to the examination of the subscribing witnesses. The material part of that section…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In re Proving the Last Will & Testament of WoerzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
  2. In re the Estate of EliasNew York Surrogate's Court · 1926
  3. In re the Estate of BurnstineNew York Surrogate's Court · 1932

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. In re the Probate of the Will of CarllNew York Surrogate's Court · 1951
  2. In re the Estate of BakerNew York Surrogate's Court · 1936
  3. In re the Estate of WolfleNew York Surrogate's Court · 1965
  4. In re the Probate of the Will of BaumNew York Surrogate's Court · 1957
  5. In re the Estate of WestoverNew York Surrogate's Court · 1989

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