Case ID: ny-sup-ct_10/html/0395-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GEORGE H. THOMPSON, Appellant, v. A. F. LEASTEDT, HENRY STEVENS and JOHN STEVENS, Respondents.
    
      Will — declaration of testator on execution of— how jyrwen.
    
    The statute does not necessarily contemplate that a testatrix should declare, “ in words,” an instrument to be her will. It is enough that the decedent makes known to the witnesses by acts and words that it is regarded and accepted as her will, and that the witnesses subscribed it as such at her request
    
    This may be established as matter of fact by one of the witnesses, even when the other has forgotten what transpired, 
    
    'Appeal from a decree of the surrogate of the county of New York, refusing probate to an instrument propounded as the last will of Eliza Leastedt, deceased.
    
      Augustus V. Wyek, for the appellant.
    
      Fra/nkUn Bartlett, for the respondents.
    
      
       Remsen v. Brinckerhoff, 26 Wend., 825; Gilbert v. Knox, 52 N. Y., 125; Matter of Will of John Kellum, id., 517.
    
    
      
       Trustees of Auburn Seminary v. Calhoun, 25 N. Y., 422.
    
   Opinion by Daniels, J.

Davis, P. J., and Beady, J., concurred.

Decree reversed, and proceedings remitted to Surrogate’s Court, with direction to admit the will to probate.