Quinn v. Quinn
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from a decree of the surrogate of Kings county admitting the will of Edward Quinn to probate. The will itself had been drawn by an attorney under the direction of the testator and executed by him, After the will was executed certain alterations were attempted to be made by testator by writing in the will, erasing and interlining. All these alterations appeared upon the will admitted, in the handwriting of the testator.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a decree of the surrogate of Kings county admitting the will of Edward Quinn to probate. The will itself had been drawn by an attorney under the direction of the testator and executed by him, After the will was executed certain alterations were attempted to be made by testator by writing in the will, erasing and interlining. All these alterations appeared upon the will admitted, in the handwriting of the testator. The alterations made by testator were as follows: v The insertion of the words “upon his obtaining his majority” after a bequest to testator’s nephew, Joseph J. Quinn.…
1Opinion of the CourtBarnard, P. J.
The appeal in this case brings up for review three questions.
First. Was the will executed and attested in the manner required by law ?
From a careful review of the testimony I think there is no doubt but that it was. There are two witnesses to the will, both of whom were examined. The witness who drew the will, Mr. Tresider, is a lawyer, used to drawing wills, and having knowledge of the requirements of a due execution of the will under the statute. The attestation clause is full. This witness testifies fully to facts which make a complete execution of the papers as a last will.
The other…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jackson ex dem. Howard v. HollowayNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- McPherson v. ClarkNew York Surrogate's Court · 1854
3Cited by1 opinion
- In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of AckermanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908