Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1910

Harrison v. Axtell

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Decided February 28, 1910 · Pee

76 N.J. Eq. 614; 6 Buchanan 614; 75 A. 1100; 1910 N.J. LEXIS 256

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Will of Landsman (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1999)
In re Estate of Churik (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1978)
In re Weeks (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1954)
In re Nixon (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1944)
In re Raynolds (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1942)
In re Bartles (N.J. 1940)
In re Tobin (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1932)
In re O'Brien (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1925)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Pee Curiam.

We concur in the opinion expressed by the ordinary that the respondent Axtell fairly sustained the burden of showing that the will was not the product of undue influence, but of the full and independent judgment of the testatrix, and, for this reason, affirm the decree under review.

For affirmance—Ti-ie Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Reed, Tbenchard, Parker, Bergen, Voori-iees, Minturn, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Gray, Congdon—14.

For reversal—Fone.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.