Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Augustus Ross, as Executor, etc., et al., Respondents, v. De Witt A. Gleason et al., Appellants, 1889 — 115 N.Y. 664 · caselaw · US
General
Augustus Ross, as Executor, etc., et al., Respondents, v. De Witt A. Gleason et al., Appellants
115 N.Y. 664·New York Court of Appeals·1889·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Augustus Ross, as Executor, etc., et al., Respondents, v. De Witt A. Gleason et al., Appellants.
(Argued June 10, 1889;
decided October 8, 1889.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered upon an order made April 11, 1887, which reversed a decree of the surrogate of the county of Chenango refusing to admit to probate a codicil to the will of Alexander Foster, deceased, and remitting the proceedings to said Surrogate’s Court with instructions to admit said codicil to probate.-
.The codicil was rejected by the surrogate on the ground of undue influence. The General Term, with whom this court agree, decided that the evidence did not sustain this objection to probate.
E. Countryman for appellants.
Albert F. Gladding for respondents.
[MAJORITY — Danforth, J.,]
Danforth, J.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Order affirmed.