In re the Estate of Baker
New York Surrogate's Court
1Opinion of the Court
Wingate, S.
It is perhaps inevitable, but none the less regrettable, that the extremely specialized nature of surrogate’s law and practice is so marked that the average member of the bar is *438unfamiliar with many of its basic principles. The natural result of this peculiarity is that questions are litigated, the governing rules of which have been clearly and uniformly determined for generations. The present proceeding is illustrative of this condition.
The testatrix, in item seventh of the will at bar, bequeathed to her sister “ in trust the sum of $750 said sum to be withdrawn from my savings…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- In re the Estate of SmallmanNew York Surrogate's Court · 1931
- Crawford v. . McCarthyNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Tifft v. . PorterNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- Bliven v. . SeymourNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of DelaneyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- In re the Estate of RubinsteinNew York Surrogate's Court · 1938
- In re the Estate of BatesNew York Surrogate's Court · 1934
- In re the Estate of LaneNew York Surrogate's Court · 1967
- In re the Estate of PovlsenNew York Surrogate's Court · 1970
- In re the Estate of RichNew York Surrogate's Court · 1960
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.