Procrustean standard in New York

1941Ct. Act, § 142; Matter of Price, 254 App. Div. 477 ; affd., 279 N. Y. 700 .) “ No Procrustean standard has been erected into which every testament’s proof of due execution must fit or else be judged invalid.” (Matter of Ewen, 206 App. Div. 198, 201 .) “ In determining whether or not the will had been duly executed, the surrogate was not confined to the spoken word of the witnesses.

1936A cogent reason for the enactment “ permitting a will to be admitted contrary to the testimony of the subscribing witnesses,” as stated in Matter of Huber ( 181 App. Div. 635, 640 ), is that “ otherwise a premium would be put on just such practices as are hinted at here, namely, ‘ holding up ’ an estate under threat to testify against due execution.” As is pointed out in Matter of Ewen ( 206 App. Div. 198, 201 ): “ No Procrustean standard has been erected into which every testament’s proof of due execution must fit or else be judged invalid.” To this may be added the testament in Matter of Dyb

1941He had a right to look to the surrounding circumstances and to the substance of the transaction, and from it all to say whether or not the will had been duly executed.” (Matter of Dybalski, 199 App. Div. 677, 680 ; affd., 234 N. Y. 510 .) When the deposition of the subscribing witness is read as a whole, it seems apparent that her memory of the entire transaction was hazy.

1936A cogent reason for the enactment “ permitting a will to be admitted contrary to the testimony of the subscribing witnesses,” as stated in Matter of Huber ( 181 App. Div. 635, 640 ), is that “ otherwise a premium would be put on just such practices as are hinted at here, namely, ‘ holding up ’ an estate under threat to testify against due execution.” As is pointed out in Matter of Ewen ( 206 App. Div. 198, 201 ): “ No Procrustean standard has been erected into which every testament’s proof of due execution must fit or else be judged invalid.” To this may be added the testament in Matter of Dyb

1941He had a right to look to the surrounding circumstances and to the substance of the transaction, and from it all to say whether or not the will had been duly executed.” (Matter of Dybalski, 199 App. Div. 677, 680 ; affd., 234 N. Y. 510 .) When the deposition of the subscribing witness is read as a whole, it seems apparent that her memory of the entire transaction was hazy.

1936A cogent reason for the enactment “ permitting a will to be admitted contrary to the testimony of the subscribing witnesses,” as stated in Matter of Huber ( 181 App. Div. 635, 640 ), is that “ otherwise a premium would be put on just such practices as are hinted at here, namely, ‘ holding up ’ an estate under threat to testify against due execution.” As is pointed out in Matter of Ewen ( 206 App. Div. 198, 201 ): “ No Procrustean standard has been erected into which every testament’s proof of due execution must fit or else be judged invalid.” To this may be added the testament in Matter of Dyb

1974Thus, except for one jurisdiction which has prohibited the practice by statute (see Beeler v. State, 374 S. W. 2d 237 [Tex.]) the prevailing view permits the trial court some discretionary power to reopen during the jury’s deliberations, particularly where an essential element has been overlooked or evidence newly discovered bears directly on the question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence (see Ann., Submission of Case to Jury — Reopening, 87 ALR 2d 849 ).

1941Ct. Act, § 142; Matter of Price, 254 App. Div. 477 ; affd., 279 N. Y. 700 .) “ No Procrustean standard has been erected into which every testament’s proof of due execution must fit or else be judged invalid.” (Matter of Ewen, 206 App. Div. 198, 201 .) “ In determining whether or not the will had been duly executed, the surrogate was not confined to the spoken word of the witnesses.

1941Ct. Act, § 142; Matter of Price, 254 App. Div. 477 ; affd., 279 N. Y. 700 .) “ No Procrustean standard has been erected into which every testament’s proof of due execution must fit or else be judged invalid.” (Matter of Ewen, 206 App. Div. 198, 201 .) “ In determining whether or not the will had been duly executed, the surrogate was not confined to the spoken word of the witnesses.

1936A cogent reason for the enactment “ permitting a will to be admitted contrary to the testimony of the subscribing witnesses,” as stated in Matter of Huber ( 181 App. Div. 635, 640 ), is that “ otherwise a premium would be put on just such practices as are hinted at here, namely, ‘ holding up ’ an estate under threat to testify against due execution.” As is pointed out in Matter of Ewen ( 206 App. Div. 198, 201 ): “ No Procrustean standard has been erected into which every testament’s proof of due execution must fit or else be judged invalid.” To this may be added the testament in Matter of Dyb

1927(Trustees of Auburn Seminary v. Calhoun, 25 N. Y. 422 .) In Matter of Ewen ( 206 App. Div. 198, 201 ) the court said: “ No Procrustean standard has been erected into which every testament’s proof of due execution must fit or else be judged invalid.

1902(Greason v. Keteltas, 17 N. Y. 491, 500 ; Smith v. Keteltas, 62 App. Div. 174 ; Stevens v. Melcher, 152 N. Y. 551 .) The procrustean rule of the common law against expenditures of this kind has been relaxed somewhat (Chapl.

1902(Greason v. Keteltas, 17 N. Y. 491, 500 ; Smith v. Keteltas, 62 App. Div. 174 ; Stevens v. Melcher, 152 N. Y. 551 .) The procrustean rule of the common law against expenditures of this kind has been relaxed somewhat (Chapl.

1902(Greason v. Keteltas, 17 N. Y. 491, 500 ; Smith v. Keteltas, 62 App. Div. 174 ; Stevens v. Melcher, 152 N. Y. 551 .) The procrustean rule of the common law against expenditures of this kind has been relaxed somewhat (Chapl.