Hyperlawhypertext legal database In re Ackerman's Will 114 N.Y.S. 197

← Cases

In re Ackerman's Will

114 N.Y.S. 197 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1908-12-30 English

Delivered by GAYNOR, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 197
In re ACKERMAN’S WILL.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
December 30, 1908.)

Headnote

1. Wills (§ 178[1] )—Effect of Erasures or Interlineations.
Erasures, interlineations, or additions made to a will after its execution do not change the will, unless made with all the formalities necessary to the execution of the will.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Wills, Dec. Dig. § 173.*]
2. Wills (§ 302*)—Erasures and Additions—Sufficiency of Evidence.
Where it appears on an inspection of a will that the erasures and additions therein were made by the notary who drew the will, and that officer testifies that he did not have the will in his possession or make any changes therein after its execution, the will was entitled to probate,
p. 198
though there Is some oral evidence that the changes were made after execution.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Wills, Dec. Dig. § 302.*]
Appeal from Surrogate’s Court, Kings County.
Appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court admitting to probate the last will and testament of Michael Ackerman, deceased. Affirmed.'
Argued before JENKS, HOOKER, GAYNOR, RICH, and MILLER, JJ.
Harry W. Mack, for appellant.
Jerry A. Wernberg, for respondent.

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. & C. 437; Lovell v. Quitman, 88 N. Y. 377 , 42 Am. Rep. 254 . It would probably have to be found on the oral evidence in this case that- the erasure and addition in the eighth 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, N. 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.

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

Cases cited