Case Name: In the Matter of the Petition of Olive E. Grismer and Charles V. Grismer, as Surviving Executors, and of Lester Harrisson, as Executor, etc., of Samuel B. Hamburger, Deceased, Executor, etc., of Joseph R. Grismer, Deceased, for the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Such Executors. World Film Corporation, Appellant; Olive E. Grismer and Charles V. Grismer, as Surviving Executors, etc., and Lester Harrisson, as Executor, etc., of Samuel B. Hamburger, Deceased, Executor, etc., of Joseph R. Grismer, Deceased, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1929-01
Citations: 225 A.D. 804
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Petition of Olive E. Grismer and Charles V. Grismer, as Surviving Executors, and of Lester Harrisson, as Executor, etc., of Samuel B. Hamburger, Deceased, Executor, etc., of Joseph R. Grismer, Deceased, for the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Such Executors. World Film Corporation, Appellant; Olive E. Grismer and Charles V. Grismer, as Surviving Executors, etc., and Lester Harrisson, as Executor, etc., of Samuel B. Hamburger, Deceased, Executor, etc., of Joseph R. Grismer, Deceased, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 225
Pages: 804–805

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Petition of Olive E. Grismer and Charles V. Grismer, as Surviving Executors, and of Lester Harrisson, as Executor, etc., of Samuel B. Hamburger, Deceased, Executor, etc., of Joseph R. Grismer, Deceased, for the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Such Executors. World Film Corporation, Appellant; Olive E. Grismer and Charles V. Grismer, as Surviving Executors, etc., and Lester Harrisson, as Executor, etc., of Samuel B. Hamburger, Deceased, Executor, etc., of Joseph R. Grismer, Deceased, Respondents.

Opinion:
So much of the decree of the Surrogate's Court of Nassau county as adjudges that the claim of the World Film Corporation is not a valid claim reversed upon the law and the facts, with costs to appellant, payable out of the estate; claim allowed, pursuant to section 309 of the Surrogate's Court Act; and proceeding remitted to the Surrogate's Court for a decree accordingly. We are of opinion that the learned surrogate erred in declining to receive in evidence claimant's Exhibit 1 for identification, which is now received in evidence. The claim was established by a fair preponderance the evidence, which is all that is required in this as in other civil actions (McKeon v. Van Slyck, 223 N. Y. 392; Ward v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 225 id. 314; Matter of Sherman, 227 id. 350; Caldwell v. Lucas, 233 id. 248), and should have been allowed. Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Young, Kapper and Hagarty, JJ., concur.