Legal Opinion
In re the Estate of Thompson
New York Surrogate's Court
Decided January 4, 1934PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Feely, S.
The claimant took the stand against the executor of this estate, and in her own behalf was asked, “ Did the testatrix ever pay you?” The executor’s counsel objected that the witness was not competent under section 347 of the Civil Practice Act. The objection was sustained, under the rule gathered from the cases by Mr. Greenfield in section 187 of his work on “ Testimony under section 347,” etc., in these words: “ One asserting a claim on debt against a decedent’s estate cannot testify that the decedent never paid the debt, or anything on account of it, or in more general terms that…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lent v. New York & Massachusetts Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Conkling v. . WeatherwaxNew York Court of Appeals · 1905
- In re the Estate of MichelsonNew York Surrogate's Court · 1933
- In re the Judicial Accounting of SmithAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
3Cited by4 opinions
- In re the Estate of SchorerNew York Surrogate's Court · 1935
- Gough v. FrostNew York Supreme Court · 1947
- In re the Estate of FeeNew York Surrogate's Court · 1934
- In re the Judicial Settlement of the Estate of ThompsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935