From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howland v. Taylor

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 10, 1873
53 N.Y. 627 (N.Y. 1873)

Summary

In Howland v. Taylor (53 N.Y. 627) — cited as an authority for the Lansing case referred to supra — the surrogate had admitted a will against the claim of forgery, and in a brief memorandum the court held that while the facts appearing were not sufficient to satisfy them that the will was a forgery, yet they were not sufficient to convince them of its genuineness, leaving the matter in doubt and uncertainty.

Summary of this case from Matter of Burtis

Opinion

Argued January 22, 1873

Decided June 10, 1873

Henry S. Clinton Samuel Hand for the appellant.

Rufus F. Andrews, Francis Kernan E.W. Stoughton for the respondents.


FOLGER, J., reads for reversal of judgment of General Term of the decree of surrogate, and ordering an issue to be tried by a jury at a Circuit Court in New York.

All concur.

PECKHAM, J., in result.

Judgment reversed, and ordered accordingly.


Summaries of

Howland v. Taylor

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 10, 1873
53 N.Y. 627 (N.Y. 1873)

In Howland v. Taylor (53 N.Y. 627) — cited as an authority for the Lansing case referred to supra — the surrogate had admitted a will against the claim of forgery, and in a brief memorandum the court held that while the facts appearing were not sufficient to satisfy them that the will was a forgery, yet they were not sufficient to convince them of its genuineness, leaving the matter in doubt and uncertainty.

Summary of this case from Matter of Burtis
Case details for

Howland v. Taylor

Case Details

Full title:KATE B. HOWLAND, Appellant, v . LAURA S. TAYLOR et al., Respondents

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 10, 1873

Citations

53 N.Y. 627 (N.Y. 1873)

Citing Cases

Matter of Burtis

" In Matter of Lansing (17 N.Y. St. Repr. 440) the court (per LEARNED, P.J.) said: "It is our duty to examine…

Simmons v. Stewart (In re Estate of Lewis)

wills unproduced and unaccounted for, petitioner failed to meet that burden ( see Jacobstein, 253 App.Div.…