17 N.Y.S. 248, In re Peck's Will
|Citation:||17 N.Y.S. 248|
|Opinion Judge:||Daniels, J.|
|Party Name:||In re Peck's Will|
|Attorney:||John J. Adams, for appellant. Dailey & Bell, (James D. Bell, of counsel,) for respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||Argued before Van Brunt, P. J., and Ingraham and Daniels, JJ. All concur.|
|Case Date:||December 31, 1891|
Appeal from surrogate's court, New York county.
Petition for probate of the will of Samuel B. Peck, deceased. Frances L. Peck, the widow of said decedent, appeals from a decree admitting the will to probate. Affirmed. See 14 N.Y.S. 899.
Decree affirmed, with costs.
The instrument which is brought in controversy by this appeal was made on the 3d of October, 1889, about a year prior to the decease of the person by whom it was subscribed. He was a man of intemperate habits, and shortly prior to the execution of the instrument had been upon a debauch, resulting in his illness, and his confinement to his bed. His wife, about the 1st of October, wrote to the sister of Mr. Peck and her husband, living at Pawling, requesting their presence in New York to look after him. They went to the city in response to the letter, and to the residence of Mr. and Mrs. Peck. After their arrival, and in the evening of the 3d of October, and after the retirement of Mrs. Peck for the night, Mr. Peck requested his sister, Sarah B. Baker, to procure writing material for the purpose of making his will. This she did, obtaining the articles in the room indicated by him in making this request. She was then requested by him to draw his will, but expressed reluctance in doing so, because of her unfamiliarity with instruments of that description. But he insisted upon the will being drawn by her, and she sat at the table, and under his dictation proceeded to draw the instrument as he worded it. After that he arose from the bed, and proceeded to the table and read the instrument, but was not satisfied with the manner in which it had been drawn; and that was destroyed, and another instrument, being the one in controversy, was drawn in like manner under his dictation. After that had been done he again repaired to the table, and took the instrument, and read it, and made no objection to the manner in which it had been drawn. He then, according to the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Baker, subscribed his name to it, and requested them to subscribe it as witnesses, at the same...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP