« 이전계속 »
Abbott v. Curran, XX, 314, Affirmed,
XXI, 234 Ackley v. Parmenter, XVIII, 427, Af. firmed.....
.XXI, 327 Aikman v. Ilarsell, XVIII, 389, Affirmed.
..XXI, 71 Allison v. Schritz, XVIII, 265, Affirm
XXI, 365 Almy v. Thurber, XVII, 89, Affirmed,
XXI, 536 Alvord v. The Syracuse Sav'gs. Bk, XX, 153, Affirmed..
.XXI, 421 Andrade v. Cohen, XIX, 209, Affirmed,
April 14, 1895. No opinion.
April 28, 1835. No opinion.
ed, June 26, 1885. No opinion. Brinkerhoff v. Bostwick, XX, 463, Reversed..
XXI, 468 Burke v. Witherbee, XVIII, 369, Reversed.
XXI, 423 ('arley v. Potts, XII, 286, Affirmed,
May 8, 1885. No opinion.
dismissed, May 5, 1885. No opinion. Cooke v. The Lalance Grosjean Mfg.
Co., XIX, 482, Reversed, June 2, 1885,
on opinion in Hickey v. Taaffe. Corrigan v. O'Connor, XV, 60, Affirm.
ed. June 16, 1885. No opinion. Coykendall v. Constable, XIX, 169, Reversed
XXI, 504 Delabunt v. The Ætna Fire Ins, Co., XIV, 479, Affirmed..
XXI, 82 Dudley v. The N. Y., L. E. & W. RR.
Co., XX, 119, Affirmed, April 14, 1885.
XXI, 231 Ellis v. The N. Y., L. E. & W. RR. Co.,
XIX, 34, Affirmed, April 14, 1845. No
Ellsworth v. The St. Louis, A. & T. H.
RR. Co., XIX, 369, Affirmed ...XXI, 419 Ferris v. Burrows, XX, 296, Affirmed,
April 14, 1885. No opinion.
XX, 541, Affirmed ....... .XXI, 305
.XXI, 450 Hall v. The U. S. Reflector Co., XX,
425, Appeal dismissed, April 28, 1885.
No opinion Hegerich v. Keddie, XVIII, 528, Re. versed..
XXI, 463 Hemmingway v. Poucher, XVIII, 371, Reversed..
.XXI, 166 Hickey v. Taaffe, XIX, 67, Reversed,
XXI, 442 Hutchings v. Hutchings, XV, 370, Reversed....
.XXI, 44 In re accountings of Tilden's ex'rs,
XIX, 128, Reversed..... .XXI, 321 In re application of Jacobs, XIX, 533, affirmed...
XXI, 111. In re estate of Hood, XX, 316, Reversed....
XXI, 181 In re accounting of Mahan, XIX, 239, Affirmed...
XXI, 122 In re petition of the N. Y., L. E. & W.
RR. Co., v. Bennet, XX, 212, Affirmed..
XXI, 232 In le petition of the N. Y., L. & W. RR. Co., XXI, 29, Affirmed....
..XXI, 437 In re petition of Waring, XXI, 120, Affirmed.....
XXI, 420 In re Swenarton v. Shupe, XX, 318, Appeal dismissed, June 26, 1885. No
opinion. In re The Union Ferry Co., XIX, 101, Reversed
XXI, 164 Jackson v. The St. Paul F. & M. Ins.
Co., XIX, 485, Reversed . .XXI, 402 Jones v. The People, XXI, 111, Affirm
ed, June 26, 1885.
Kirkland v. Kille, XVI, 227, Reversed,
.XXI, 571 Knight v The N. Y., L. E. & W. RR.
(0., XVIII, 214, Reversed, ..XXI 361 Krower v. Reynolds, XIX, 383, Reversed ...
.XXI, 466 Lawrence v. Spence, XVI, 314, Affirm
.XXI, 539 Little v. Lynch, XX, 375, Reversed
.XXI, 340 Lockwood v. The N. Y., L. E. & W.
RR. Co., XX, 311, Affirmed.....XXI, 322 Marx v. Spaulding. XXI, 275, Appeal
dismissed, June 26, 1885. No opinion. Mingay v. The Holly Mfg. Co., XX, 513, Reversed.
..XXI, 454 Moore v. The City of Albany, XX, 282, Affirmed....
XXI, 338 Moriarty v. Bartlett, XX, 277, Revers
ed, June 9, 1885, on opinion in
Hegerich v. Keddie. Osterhoudt v. Hyland, XIV, 566, Affirmed,.....
.XXI, 403 Palmer v. The Pennsylvania Co., XXI,
130, Appeal dismissed, June 26, 1885.
XVI, 341, Affirmed, June 9, 1885. Parker v. Stroud, XVIII, 451, Reversed...
XXI, 196 Peck v. Peck, XX, 83, Affirmed, April
14, 1885, on opinion below. Pineo v. The N. Y. C. & H. R. RR. Co.,
XX, 287, Affirmed, May 8, 1885. No
opinion. Pond v. Starkweather, XX, 265, Affirmed...
.XXI, 446 Power v. The N. Y., L. E. & W. RR.
Co., XIX, 408, Reversed.. .XXI, 158 Price v. Price, XIX, 331, Affirmed,
...XXI, 194 Putnam v. The N. Y. C. & H. R. RR. Co , XVI, 111, Affirmed, June 2, 1885.
May 5, 1885, on opinion below.
The First Nat'l Bank of N. Y. v. The
Continental Nat'l Bank, XVII, 42,
Affirmed, June 2, 1885. No opinion. The Hadley Falls Nat'l Bank v. May,
XVI, 524, Affirmed, June 26, 1885.
Purdon, XX, 352, Affirmed.. .XXI, 447 The Marine Nat'l Bank v. Ward, XXI,
176, Appeal dismissed, June 26, 1885,
firmed, June 26, 1885.
Co., XIX, 194, Affirmed........XXI, 438 The People ex rel. Dowdney v. Thompson, XIX, 455, Appeal dismissed,
XXI, 413 The People ex rel. Osgood v. Comrs. of Taxes, XXI, 93, Appeal dismissed,
... XXI, 378 The People ex rel. Short v. Bacon, XIX,
129, Affirmed, June 9, 1885. The People ex rel. Swift v. Police
Comrs., XVIII, 21, Affirmed....XXI, 503 The People ex rel. The A. & G. Bridge
Co. v. Weaver, XX, 565, Appeal dis
missed, June 16, 1887. No opinion. The People ex rel. The Cayuga In
dians v. Land Office, XX, 535, Re
versed, June 2, 1885. The People ex rel. Townshend v. Cady,
XIX, 498, Affirmed, April 21, 1855.
.XXI, 450 The Remington Paper Co. v. O'Dough
June 26, 1885. No opinion. Shipman v. Rollins, XIX, 370, Reversed.
.XXI, 344 Smyth v. Rowe, XX, 98, Affirmed,
XXI, 368 Sperry v. The D., L. & W. RR. Co. XVI,
437, Affirmed, June 26, 1885. No opinion.
erty, XVIII, 190, XIX, 53, Appeals dismissed, June 26, 1885. No opin
ions. Thomas v. The N. Y. Life Ins. Co. XIX, 335, Reversed....
XXI, 443 Tiers v. Tiers, XIX, 243, Affirmed
.XXI, 387 Wagner v. The N. Y., L. E. & W. RR.
Co., XX, 277, Affirmed, June 16, 1885,
301, Affirmed, April 14, 1885. No
WILLS. UNDUE INFLUENCE. One of the grand-children appeared
as a contestant, and alleged in her N. Y. COURT OF APPEALS.
answer that the paper was not the In re probate will of Martin, de- last will and testament of M., and ceased.
that its execution was not her free Decided Feb. 10, 1885.
and voluntary act; that she was
not at the time of its execution of Where the testatrix had testamentary capacity, a present knowledge of the con- sound mind, memory and undertents of the will, and was surrounded by standing; that it was not suball the safeguards provided by the statute,
scribed, published and attested in the will can be avoided only by influence amour.ting to force or coercion and proof conformity with the statute ; that
that it was obtained by this coercion. the attesting witnesses did not sign To establish fraud or undue influence in their names at her request : that
the execution of a will something more the instrument so offered for must be shown than the relation of parent probate was obtained and its exand child and an opportunity for unfair dealing. There must be evidence that ecution procured by the fraud, the parent was imposed upon or over- circumvention and undue influence come by the practices of the child to the of the three sons of M. or one of benefit of the latter.
them. The property of the deceM. died Sept. 10, 1880, leaving dent consisted of real estate, which three sons and four grand-children, she distributed among her three children of a deceased daughter. sons subject to the payment by On June 21, 1881, W. C. M., one them to each of the grand-children of the sons, as executor, offered of fifty dollars.
There was no for probate as the will of M. an proof of influence exerted or existinstrument dated August 9, 1879. ing. Upon the trial of the issues
Vol. 21-No. 1.
the Surrogate found that the tes- makes the allegation. 35 N. Y. tatrix subscribed the will described 559; 68 id, 148. in the petition at the end thereof, It was claimed that because the in the presence of two attesting proponent of the will was the son witnesses, who signed their names of the testatrix and communicated thereto at the request of the testa- to the scrivener the provisions to trix, in her presence and in the be inserted in the will, and became presence of each other; that at himself a beneficiary, fraud and the time of subscribing it the tes- undue influence was shown. tatrix declared to both of the wit
Held, Untenable. To establish nesses that the instrument so sub- fraud or undue influence in the scribed by her was her last will execution of a will something more and testament; that at that time must be shown than the relation she possessed testamentary capac- of parent and child and an oppority, but that said will was obtained | tunity for unfair dealing. There from her through the undue influ
must be evidence that the parent ence of her son W. M. A decree
was imposed upon or overcome by was made denying probate to the the practices of the child to the will. On an appeal by the execu- benefit of the latter before the tors to the General Term, on a case burden of proof can be shifted. containing the evidence, the de- 35 N. Y. 559; 68 id. 148. cree of the Surrogate was reversed
Also held. That it was not imand the proceeding remitted to
proper for the Supreme Court to him with directions to admit the direct judgment. will to probate. The contestant Sutton v. Ray, 72 N. Y., 482, appeals from that decision. The distinguished. appellant's counsel conceded that
Also held, that under the cirbefore the testatrix signed the will cumstances costs should be im“it was either read to or its con- posed on the contestant. tents explained” to her.
Order of General Term, reversing C. Morschauser, for applt. decree of Surrogate and directing William J. Sayres, for respts. the Surrogate to admit the will to
Held, That this being a case probate, affirmed. where the testatrix had testamen
Opinion by Danforth, J. All tary capacity, a present knowledge of the contents of the will
, and where at its execution she was
MANDAMUS. BROOKLYN surrounded by all the guards which
BRIDGE. the statute has prescribed to pre
N. Y. COURT OF APPEALS. vent fraud and imposition, the will The People ex rel. Stranahan, can be avoided only by influence respt., v. Thompson, applt. amounting to force or coercion,
Decided Jan. 20, 1885. and proof that it was obtained by
A mandamus cannot be granted to compel this coercion. The burden of
the issuing of a permit to the trustees of proving this is on the party who the Brooklyn Bridge to enter upon certain
streets to lay foundations for the ap- provision that the streets shall be proaches to the bridge where the effect
spanned by a suitable arch or susthereof will be to allow the trustees to place pillars or columns in such streets.
pended platform means that the Chap 399, Laws of 1867, prohibits the inter- pillars or columns shall be erected
position of any obstacle to the free and outside of and beyond the streets. uninterrupted use of the streets, and con
The statute confers no authority fers no authority which authorizes the
which authorizes the exercise of exercise of any discretion in determining the character of the obstruction.
any discretion in determining the
character of the obstruction. The The relator applied for a man
Board of Trustees have no right, damus to compel the Commission
in the exercise of their powers ers of Public Works and the De.
under said section ($10), to say partment of Parks to grant a permit to the Board of Trustees of
that any erection in the streets the Brooklyn Bridge to enter upon
made by them can occasion only
a trifling obstruction and is thereChatham and Centre Streets in the
fore not violative of the statute, City of New York, for the purpose of laying the foundation to com
nor have the courts power to replete said bridge in accordance view their action and decide, under with a map filed in the register's the statute, how far and to what office. The effect of the permit extent pillars or columns may be asked for would be to allow the
erected which will occasion any
obstruction. relator to construct a platform over said streets supported by
The legislature intended to conpillars or columns resting in one
fer absolute authority for the
building of the bridge through such or both of said streets. Section
streets as might be required upon 10, of chapter 399 of the Laws of 1867, the Act incorporating the
payment of compensation to abutBridge Co., declares that said bridge ting owners, and to protect the “shall not obstruct any street public streets and the crossings of which it shall cross, but that such
the same by positive and clear resstreet shall be spanned by a suit- trictions, which are equally applic
able to all streets necessarily to be able arch or suspended platform as
crossed by the bridge, and no disshall give suitable height for the
tinction can be made in favor of passage under the same for all purposes of public travel and trans- any portion of the bridge or its
approaches which authorizes a disportation.” The motion for a mandamus was granted.
regard of the statute.
While property devoted to one James C. Carter, for applt.
public use may be applied to anAaron J. Vanderpoel and Wm. other, this can only be done when N. Dykman, for respts.
express authority is given for that Held, Error ; that the statute purpose by the clearest provisions prohibits the interposition of any of law. obstacle to the free and unob- Order of General Term, affirmstructed use of the streets. The ing order granting motion for