Neiheisel v. Toerge
New York Surrogate's Court
Application for the probate of the will of Elizabeth Stark. . The facts appear sufficiently in the opinion. ^
1Opinion of the Court
The Surrogate.—The probate of this will is opposed on three grounds. It is claimed :
1st. That it was not properly executed.
2d. That it was procured through undue influence.
3d. That it does not express the intentions of the testatrix.
Mr. Simis and Mr. Daab were the two attesting witnesses, and they differ as to some of the facts.
According to Mr. Daab’s version, he went to Mrs. Stark’s house for the purpose of witnessing her will, and got there before Mr. Simis, the other attesting witness. When Mr. Simis arrived, he' and Mrs. Stark went into the front room, Daab remaining in the back room ;…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Cudney v. . CudneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Horn v. . PullmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Waterman v. . WhitneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
- Comstock v. . HierNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Orser v. . OrserNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- In re the Construction of the Will of KordesNew York Surrogate's Court · 1948
- Egan v. PeaseNew York Surrogate's Court · 1886
- Shaw v. ShawNew York Surrogate's Court · 1882