In re the Estate of Fitzgerald
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1DissentHerlihy, J.
The Surrogate found that the testatrix intended the subject provision of her holographic will to be a specific bequest of a certain bank account standing in her sole ownership at the time she executed the will and limited the bequest to the amount of such account at that time.
In view of the certainty of the Surrogate and the majority herein that the testatrix did not contemplate or intend the disposition of her jointly owned property, it should be noted that she made no such declaration at the time she executed her will and apparently at no time thereafter. From the present record it is…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Crawford v. . McCarthyNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Morris v. . SicklyNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Carley v. . HarperNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Simpson v. Trust Co. of AmericaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
- Hutchings v. . HutchingsNew York Court of Appeals · 1913
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.