McSorley v. McSorley
New York Surrogate's Court
I. The testator had testamentary capacity. 1. His habit of drinking had not destroyed or impaired his capacity to do business or execute a will. The law presumes him capable till the contrary is made out. The opposing witnesses testify to no facts showing loss of mind. They give their opinions only, formed from occasional conversations and eccentric behavior.
Read the full summary
I. The testator had testamentary capacity. 1. His habit of drinking had not destroyed or impaired his capacity to do business or execute a will. The law presumes him capable till the contrary is made out. The opposing witnesses testify to no facts showing loss of mind. They give their opinions only, formed from occasional conversations and eccentric behavior. (2 R. S., p. 2, § 1; 5 J. R., 144; Jackson v. King, 4 Cowen, 207; 26 Wend., 293, ib. 317 ; 21 Wend., 142; 24 Wend., 85. The testimony in favpr of his capacity is supported by facts, and the opposing witnesses corroborate it by proving…
1Opinion of the Court
The Surrogate.
The will propounded for probate, gives all the estate of the deceased, real and personal, to his wife, Catharine McSorley. He left no children surviving, and his heirs-at-law and next of kin consist of a brother, a sister, and the children of a deceased sister. During the pendency of the present contest, the widow has died, leaving a will disposing of her property, which has been duly proved.
*191The contestants have endeavored to establish James McSorley’s incompetency to make a will. I will consider that evidence after having first adverted to the circumstances attending the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Turhune v. BrookfieldNew York Surrogate's Court · 1854
- Savage v. OlmsteadNew York Surrogate's Court · 1877