Knapp v. . Knapp
Cases that cite this one
30 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- In re Sheldon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1913)
- In re Albert Smith Sheldon for the Proof & Probate of an Alleged Last Will & Testament of Hudson (New York Supreme Court 1913)
- Scheuer v. State (Mont. 1904)
- Hard v. Ashley (New York Supreme Court 1895)
- Collyer v. . Collyer (N.Y. 1888)
- In re the Probate of the Last Will of Marsh (New York Supreme Court 1887)
- In re the Probate of the Will of Nichols (New York Supreme Court 1886)
- In re the Estate of Lewis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- In re the Estate of Lewis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- In re the Estate of Engelken (New York Surrogate's Court 1980)
- Matter of Estate of Hartman (Mont. 1977)
- In re the Estate of Moffat (New York Surrogate's Court 1956)
- In re Kerckhof's Estate (Wash. 1942)
- In re the Estate of Breding (New York Surrogate's Court 1936)
- In re the Probate of the Will of Staiger (N.Y. 1926)
- Johnson v. Kroc (Minn. 1923)
- In re Phillips (New York Surrogate's Court 1922)
- In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of Dorrity (New York Surrogate's Court 1922)
- Cooley v. Cooley (New York Supreme Court 1921)
- In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of Field (New York Surrogate's Court 1919)
- In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of Hopkins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1902)
- In re Proving the Last Will & Testament of Kennedy (N.Y. 1901)
- In re Kennedy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1900)
- Collyer v. Collyer (New York Surrogate's Court 1886)
- Collyer v. Collyer (New York Supreme Court 1886)
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
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 278
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 279 After a careful examination of the testimony in this cause, I am satisfied that there was not sufficient evidence to authorize a submission to the jury of the question *Page 280 whether the will in controversy was in existence at the death of the testator; and a fortiori not sufficient to justify proof of its contents.
I concur in the views, of the facts and law of the case, taken by the supreme court, and neatly and appropriately expressed by Mr. Justice MASON.
The counsel for the appellant directed our attention to the rule that the presumption of the revocation of a will, resting on the fact that it could not be found after the testator's death, is rebutted by proof that the will before his death was really or practically in the possession of a person whose interests were adverse to it, and then argued, that the respondent was such person in this case. But the bill of exceptions furnishes no proof that the will, in any aspect, was ever in her possession. It can only be said on the testimony, that by living with her father, and he being old and feeble, she had facilities for rifling his desk and destroying his will.
Judgment affirmed with costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.