Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1908

In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of Ackerman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 30, 1908 · Gaynor

129 A.D. 584; 114 N.Y.S. 197; 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1368

Counsel

Harry W. Mack, for the appellant., Jerry A. Wernberg, for the respondent.

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

In re the Probate of the Will of Moerlins (New York Surrogate's Court 1950)
In re the Estate of Enright (New York Surrogate's Court 1931)
In re Kathan's Will (New York Surrogate's Court 1913)
In re the Estate Charitou (New York Surrogate's Court 1993)
In re the Estate of Collins (New York Surrogate's Court 1982)
In re the Accounting of Bridgman (New York Surrogate's Court 1960)
In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of Allen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1939)
In re the Estate of Smith (New York Surrogate's Court 1936)
In re the Estate of Voges (New York Surrogate's Court 1935)
In re the Estate of Ridgway (New York Surrogate's Court 1931)
In re the Judicial Settlement of Account of Sternberg (New York Surrogate's Court 1928)
In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of Bissonnette (New York Surrogate's Court 1926)
In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of Fox (New York Surrogate's Court 1922)
In re Proving the Last Will and Testament of Wood (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1911)
In re the Proving the Last Will & Testament of Miller (New York Surrogate's Court 1906)

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

Gaynor, J.:

The law of the case is that erasures, interlineations and additions made to a will after its execution do not change the will unless made with all the formalities necessary to a will, but the will has to be probated as though they had not been made (Quinn v. Quinn, 1 Thomp. & Cook, 437; Lovell v. Quitman, 88 N. Y. 377). It would probably have to be found on the oral evidence in this case that the erasure and addition in the 8th clause of the will were made after the execution by the testator, but upon inspection of the will it appears that they were made by the hand of the notary who drew the will, and he testifies that he did not have possession of the will and made no changes in it after its execution. The words originally were, “ The balance of my cash deposits with the Germania Savings Bank of Brooklyn, H. Y.”, is devoted to a burial plot, monument and funeral expenses. A line was drawn through the words “ The Germania Savings ” and an “ s ” added to the word “ Bank ”, so as to make the provision cover the deposits in all of the banks instead of in one.

The decree should be affirmed.

Jenks, Hooker, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Kings county affirmed, with costs.

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