Legal Opinion

In re Flansburgh's Will

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 7, 1894PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from surrogate’s court, Broome county. Application by Susan Brizzee for probate of the will of John W. Flansburgh, deceased. Probate was contested by Calesta A. Miller. From a decree refusing to admit the will to probate, proponent appeals.

1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.

It was expressly found by the surrogate’s court that the execution of the will in question was not procured by undue influence. This finding was, we think, fully justified by the evidence. The only ground upon which probate of the testator’s will was denied was that he was not of sound and disposing mind and memory, and not competent to make a valid will. Hence, the only question to be determined upon this appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to fairly justify that conclusion. If the testator’s mental powers enabled him to understand and appreciate the amount and condition of his…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Delafield v. . ParishNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
  2. In Re the Probate of the Will of SnellingNew York Court of Appeals · 1893

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. In re Proving the Last Will & Testament of CoeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
  2. In re Falabella's WillNew York Surrogate's Court · 1913
  3. In re Gedney's WildNew York Surrogate's Court · 1913
  4. In re the Will of LaphamNew York Surrogate's Court · 1896
  5. In re Contested Will of BarbineauNew York Surrogate's Court · 1899

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

Powered by the Exa API