Legal Opinion

In Re Proving the Last Will & Testament of Higgins

New York Court of Appeals

Decided January 29, 1884PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal from judgment of the Genera^ Term of the Supreme Court, in the third judicial department, entered upon an order made May 2, 1882, which affirmed a decree of the surrogate of Cortland county, admitting to probate the will of Ambrose S. Higgins, deceased. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Read the full summary

Appeal from judgment of the Genera^ Term of the Supreme Court, in the third judicial department, entered upon an order made May 2, 1882, which affirmed a decree of the surrogate of Cortland county, admitting to probate the will of Ambrose S. Higgins, deceased. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Probate of the will should be denied because the testator did not acknowledge its subscription to each of the attesting witnesses, and at the time declare it to be his last will and testament. (3 R S. [7th ed., Throop] 2285.) A subscription of a will by a testator, after the witnesses…

1Opinion of the CourtMiller, J.

The only question presented upon this appeal is whether the testator acknowledged his signature to his will to the subscribing witnesses at the time they signed the attestation clause. The proof shows that the testator drew up the will in his own handwriting, and brought it to one Jones, who drew up the attestation clause to the same. One of the witnesses, Stoker, testified that he was present at the time, and that Jones asked the testator if the signature to the will was his, and he replied tliat it was ; that Jones then asked him if that was his last will and testament, and he said it was ;…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Marx v. . McGlynnNew York Court of Appeals · 1882

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Gillis v. GillisSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
  2. In Re the Probate of a Paper Alleged to Be the Last Will and Testament of BoothNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
  3. In re Proving the Will of StockwellNew York Surrogate's Court · 1896
  4. In re LookNew York Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Simmons v. CampbellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1919

9 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