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.
In the Matter of the Probate of a Paper Writing Purporting to be the Last Will and Testament of Joseph Albinger, Deceased. Nicholas Lauer, Appellant; Anna Niemann et al., Respondents, 1901 — 166 N.Y. 634 · caselaw · US
General
In the Matter of the Probate of a Paper Writing Purporting to be the Last Will and Testament of Joseph Albinger, Deceased. Nicholas Lauer, Appellant; Anna Niemann et al., Respondents
166 N.Y. 634·New York Court of Appeals·1901·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
In the Matter of the Probate of a Paper Writing Purporting to be the Last Will and Testament of Joseph Albinger, Deceased. Nicholas Lauer, Appellant; Anna Niemann et al., Respondents.
Matter of Albinger, 47 App. Div. 643, appeal dismissed.
(Argued April 15, 1901;
decided April 23, 1901.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 9, 1900, affirming' a decree of the Westchester County Surrogate’s Court refusing to admit to probate a certain paper writing purporting to be the last will and testament of Joseph Albinger, deceased.
The motion was made upon the grounds that the Appellate Division. unanimously decided that the findings of fact are supported by the evidence, that the exceptions are frivolous and that no question of law is presented for review.
Richard M. Bruno for motion.
John Van Voorhis opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs.