Case Name: In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Frank Bennett, Deceased. Theodore Bennett and Others, Appellants; Anna Barbara Bennett, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1923-12-07
Citations: 207 A.D. 388
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Frank Bennett, Deceased. Theodore Bennett and Others, Appellants; Anna Barbara Bennett, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 207
Pages: 388–406

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Frank Bennett, Deceased. Theodore Bennett and Others, Appellants; Anna Barbara Bennett, Respondent.
Second Department,
December 7, 1923.
Wills — probate — no issue of fact as to publication — direction of verdict in favor of proponents was proper.
In proceedings to probate a will in which, it was contended that the will was not properly published, the evidence shows that no real issue of fact as to the publication of the will was presented and, therefore, the direction of a verdict by the surrogate in favor of the proponent was proper.
Kblby, J., dissents, with opinion, in which Kappeb, J., concurs in part.
Appeal by Theodore Bennett and others from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of the county of Kings, entered in the office of said Surrogate’s Court on the 20th day of September, 1922, upon the verdict of a jury rendered by direction of the surrogate, admitting to probate the will of Frank Bennett, deceased.
Thomas J. O’ Neill [Adolph Ruger and Leonard F. Fish with him on the brief], for the appellants.
Herbert T. Keteham, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
We think that the evidence presented no real issue of fact as to the publication of the will. (Matter of Burnham, 201 App. Div. 621; affd., 234 N. Y. 475.) Therefore, the surrogate properly directed a verdict.
Kelly, P. J., Manning and Young, JJ., concur; Kelby, J., dissents, and reads for modification; Kapper, J., concurs with Kelby, J., for modification, and for a new trial, upon the ground that the evidence presented a question of fact as to the due execution of the will, but does not regard the constitutionality of section .457a of the Civil Practice Act as involved in such determination.
Added by Laws of 1921, chap. 872.— [Rbp.