Case Name: Matter of the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of Adeline E. R. Anderson, Deceased
Court: New York Surrogate's Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-12
Citations: 78 Misc. 713
Docket Number: 
Parties: Matter of the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of Adeline E. R. Anderson, Deceased.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 78
Pages: 713–715

Head Matter:
Matter of the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of Adeline E. R. Anderson, Deceased.
(Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,
December, 1912.)
Wills—probate —witnesses — codicil executed in sister state in accordance with laws thereof.
Where a resident of this state while in the state of Florida executes a paper purporting to be a codicil to her last will, and the law of that state provides that all wills of personal property shall be in writing and signed by the testatrix or some other person in her presence and by her express direction, said codicil, so far as it affects personal property, is entitled to probate in this state, though not attested by any subscribing witnesses.
Proceeding upon the probate of a will and codicil.
Foley & Martin, for proponent.
Philip A. Brennan, for contestant Louise Schuyler Small.
Franklin Taylor, for contestants Grace M. Peterson and George M. Peterson.
Cardozo & Nathan, for contestant Robert Weir Hemp-stead. " •
Isaac W. Goodhue, for Maud E. Ihne and Virginia Johnson.
Edward J. Dowling, special guardian for Florence Almeda Ohristobelle Hempstead, Willie Mary Marguerite Hempstead and Maud E. Ihne, infants.
Morris Cohen, special guardian for Charles Littell, an incompetent.

Opinion:
Ketoham, S.
The will of the decedent, upon due proofs, is about to be admitted to probate. A paper is also propounded as a codicil and the question arises, whether or not it can be admitted to probate only as an instrument affecting personal property. It has the form of a codicil. It is self-styled a codicil. It is subscribed by the decedent but it is not attested by any witnesses.
The fact will be found that the decedent was a resident of the state of Mew York when this instrument was made and that the same was made in the state of Florida. The' Mew York statute provides that "A will of personal property executed without the state and within the United States as prescribed by the laws of the state where it was executed " may be admitted to probate in this state. Decedent Estate Law, § 23.
The Florida statute is "All wills of personal property shall be in writing and signed by the testator or some other person in his presence and by his express direction." Gen. Stat. of Florida, § 2274.
In Hays v. Ernest, 32 Fla. 18, the court speaks as follows of the statute last quoted: " The statute did not undertake to prescribe the mode of executing wills in reference to the disposition of personal property, furthei than to regulate the revocation of such wills when written, and the establishment of nuncupative wills. In other respects the common law rule controlled the execution of wills concerning personal property, and according to this, such wills when written required no witness ' to their execution. (Meyer v. Fogg, 7 Fla. 292; Schouler on Wills, sec. 318)."
The statement of the parties as to the law of Florida is accepted as among the facts proved. The surrogate makes no personal inquiry upon the subject.
From that statement it appears that a will made under circumstances such as surrounded this codicil would be executed as prescribed by the law of Florida and should be admitted to probate in this state. Matter of Gaines, 84 Hun, 520; affd., 154 N. Y. 747.
The case of Moultrie v. Hunt, 23 N. Y. 394, and the many cases in which it was followed were swept away by the amendment of 1893 which remains in the statute cited supra. Decedent Estate Law, § 23.
An argument is made upon the theory that the questionable paper was " simply an - instrument of revocation and not a testamentary disposition of the property." It was by its terms, its declared character and the method of its execution a testamentary instrument. By virtue of it, if valid, residuary legatees receive a portion which, without it, they would not have received, and whether it be called by its statutory name " an instrument of revocation or alteration " or, by its earlier name, a " codicil," it is to be judged by the rules which surround a will.
The codicil is admitted to probate so far as the same affects personal property.
Decreed accordingly.