Case law

In re Hastings

6 Dem. Sur. 307 · New York Surrogate's Court · Oct 15, 1887

Jarman somewhat qualifies this doctrine, in the following proposition, which is supported by numerous decisions: “ Though it is the will itself, and not the intention as elsewhere collected, which constitutes the real and … It must be the case of an ambiguity which cannot otherwise be removed, and which may, by these means, be clearly and satisfactorily explained. ....

In re the Estate of Thomas

140 Misc. 446 · New York Surrogate's Court · May 29, 1931

The proponents have failed to meet the burden imposed, upon them, of establishing the testamentary capacity of the testator. … It is a significant fact that he did not make himself a subscribing witness and thus qualify himself to give important testimony as to the testator’s conversation, actions and condition.

In re the Estate of Erlanger

145 Misc. 1 · New York Surrogate's Court · Aug 1, 1932

The common-law marriage has been established very clearly by actual cohabitation as husband and wife, acknowledgment, declarations, conduct, repute and reception among friends and neighbors. … All that the law looks to is to the identity of the individual, and when that is ascertained and clearly established the act will be binding on him and on others.