TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Proving the Will of Gaffken

In the Matter of Proving the Will of Arthur H. Gaffken, Deceased. Mary L. Gaffken, Appellant; John C. Borges, Respondent

In re Proving the Will of Gaffken, 135 N.E. 971 (N.Y. 1922)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 13, 1922
Citations
135 N.E. 971233 N.Y. 6881922 N.Y. LEXIS 1116
Headnotes
Will — marriage and birth of issue after making of will — law in effect at death of testator controls — where provision has been made for widow will is valid as to her.
Summary
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 10, 1921, admitting to probate the will of Arthur H. Gaffken, deceased, subject to the rights of testator’s son born after the making of said will. On June 12, 1914, testator made the will probated, in which he gave one-third of his estate to Mary Louise Krom, and the remaining two-thirds to his mother, Adelheid Gaffken, and appointed executors. On June fourteenth he married Mary Louise Krom, to whom on February 3, 1916, was born a son.. Testator died December 10, 1920, leaving as surviving his mother, wife and son. Under the law in force when the will was made revocation was inferred by subsequent marriage and birth of issue. Under the law in effect at. testator’s death revocation was inferred only as to wife or issue for whom no provision was made unless the will showed intention not to make such provision. The question was as to which law applied, the one in force when the will was executed or that in force at testator’s death. The Appellate Division held that the meaning and effect of a will was governed by the law in force at testator’s death and that the will was valid as to the wife for whom provision had been made.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 26 cases

View all citing references →
1922: 21927: 11930: 31931: 11932: 41933: 21934: 11936: 21937: 11938: 11943: 11965: 11966: 11967: 21987: 11994: 12015: 119222026peak 1932 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re the Estate of Holmes147 Misc. 394 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1933)
  2. In re the Estate of de Coppet142 Misc. 816 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1932)
  3. In re the Estate of Scolpino137 Misc. 58 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1930)
  4. In re the Estate of Neufeld145 Misc. 442 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1932)
  5. In re the Estate of Churchman153 Misc. 272 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1934)
  6. In re the Estate of Erlanger136 Misc. 784 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1930)

Most recent

  1. In re the Estate of Sugg49 Misc. 3d 455 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2015)
  2. In re the Estate of Boyd161 Misc. 2d 191 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1994)
  3. In re the Estate of Malavase133 A.D.2d 759 (1987)
  4. Wilson v. Francis155 S.E.2d 49 (Va. 1967)
  5. In re the Estate of Lewin27 A.D.2d 971 (1967)
  6. In re the Estate of Lewin51 Misc. 2d 141 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1966)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list