Case Name: George Hermann, Respondent, v. Kate Ludwig et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Another
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1920-06-01
Citations: 229 N.Y. 544
Docket Number: 
Parties: George Hermann, Respondent, v. Kate Ludwig et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Another.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 229
Pages: 544–545

Head Matter:
George Hermann, Respondent, v. Kate Ludwig et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Another.
Will—action to establish joint,will, to vacate decree probating later will and to enjoin interference with estate of decedent.
Hermann v. Ludwig, 186 App. Div. 287, affirmed.
(Argued December 2, 1919;
reargued April 26, 1920;
decided June 1, 1920.)
Appeal from a judgment entered April 12, 1919, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term and directing judgment in favor of plaintiff. The action was in equity to establish a joint will executed by plaintiff and one Mary Hermann, deceased, and prayed for a decree that the provisions -of such joint will are binding upon the -estate of the deceased and upon the defendants in the action. The plaintiff asked for additional relief that the provisions of the joint will be carried out as the last will and testament of deceased, and that a later will executed by Mary Hermann be declared inoperative, illegal, ineffectual, and null and void; that a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Queens county admitting the later will to probate be vacated and the letters testamentary issued thereunder revoked, and that the executor appointed in said will, and the defendant receiver, appointed in a partition suit between the parties in New York county, be directed to account to plaintiff. Plaintiff also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the estate of said decedent, from prosecuting the action in partition, and for such other relief as might seem just and equitable.
Nathan L. Miller, Henry A. Friedman and Charles L. Hoffman for Kate Ludwig, appellant.
Howard C. Taylor for Christopher Hermann et al., appellants.
Sydney Rosenthal and George C. Lay for respondent.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Collin, Hogan, Pound, McLaughlin and Elkus, JJ. Dissenting: Andrews, J. Not voting: His cock, Ch. J. _