Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Putnam

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided December 12, 1929PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Foley, S.

In this contested probate proceeding the jury answered in the negative the single question submitted to them, as to whether the will was procured by undue influence. The evidence clearly created an issue of fact for determination by the jury. The circumstances of the ease, the relationship between the testatrix and her attorney, who was a beneficiary under the will and its draftsman, presented a question similar to that discussed in Matter of Kindberg (207 N. Y. 220). By reason of these circumstances the burden was cast upon the attorney to explain that the will represented the free,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Marx v. . McGlynnNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
  2. In Re the Probate of the Will of KindbergNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
  3. In Re Proving the Will of ColemanNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
  4. Smith v. . KellerNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
  5. In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of EnoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Stormon v. WeissNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1954
  2. In re the Probate of the Will of AndersonNew York Surrogate's Court · 1956
  3. In re the Estate of ForsythNew York Surrogate's Court · 1938
  4. In re PutnamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930
  5. Stormon v. WeissNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API