Legal Opinion
In re the Estate of Gebhardt
New York Surrogate's Court
Decided April 7, 1931PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Wingate, S.
The questions here presented are whether a child en ventre sa mere is, first, alive, and, second, born, so as to permit *776it to receive a legacy limited to persons of a class possessing such characteristics.
That such a child is living or “ alive ” is not here seriously contested, and is incontrovertibly established by controlling authority, (Quinlan v. Welch, 69 Hun, 584, 585; affd., 141 N. Y. 158; Drobner v. Peters, 232 id. 220, 222; Matter of Voight, 178 App. Div. 751, 756; Matter of McEwan, 202 id. 50, 53; Marsellis v. Thalhimer, 2 Paige Ch. 35, 39; Matter of Wells, 129 Misc. 447,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Quinlan v. . WelchNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings HardenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917
- Marsellis v. ThalhimerNew York Court of Chancery · 1830
- Cooper v. HeathertonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901
- Quinlen v. WelchNew York Supreme Court · 1893
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- In re the Estate of CrespiNew York Surrogate's Court · 1936
- In re the Estate of WolfNew York Surrogate's Court · 1931
- In re the Estate of LesserNew York Surrogate's Court · 1936
- In re the Estate of PharesNew York Surrogate's Court · 1963