Legal Opinion

In re the Probate of the Will of Alexander

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided May 25, 1954PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hazleton, S.

Deceased, in her holographic will, named her attorney as her executor. His petition for probate has met with objections based upon lack of testamentary capacity of the deceased. Contestants now seek by this motion to examine both the attorney-executor and his partner concerning conversations had with the deceased, which motion in turn is challenged by petitioner.

In respect to the propounded paper, it is clear that petitioner can only testify “ as to its preparation and execution ”, provided he actually participated in either the preparation or the execution of the instrument…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In Re the Will of PutnamNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
  2. In Re the Probate of the Will of MathesonNew York Court of Appeals · 1940
  3. Williamson v. GuernseyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. In re BeinyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
  2. Mayorga v. TateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
  3. In re the Estate of FishmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1969
  4. In re the Estate of WeinbergNew York Surrogate's Court · 1986
  5. In re the Estate of SwanteeNew York Surrogate's Court · 1977

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API