
    Matter of the Probate of the Lost Will and Testament of Mary Cosgrove, Deceased.
    (Surrogate’s Court, New York County,
    May, 1900.)
    1. Lost will — Accounting for loss.
    Where the tenor and due execution of a will are properly proved and the executor to whom it was delivered by the testatrix for safekeeping testifies to continuous custody of it, the subsequent loss of it, his search therefor and his failure to find it, it is to be inferred that the will existed when the testatrix died or was fraudulently destroyed in her lifetime, and it therefore is entitled to probate.
    8. Same — Declarations of testatrix rebutting presumption of revocation.
    Declarations of the testatrix made about a week before her death in which she spoke of the will as being in the custody of the executor are competent to rebut any inference of revocation arising from the loss of the will.
    Proceedings upon probate of a will.
    
      Daniel J. Cushing, for proponent.
    George H. Starr, special guardian, for contestants.
   Thomas, S.

The existence of the will of the testatrix, its due execution and its provisions, were clearly and distinctly proved in the manner required hy law. It was also shown hy two disinterested witnesses that the paper was, immediately after its execution, delivered by the decedent to the executor named in it, who was also the residuary legatee, for safe keeping, and there is no evidence that it ever subsequently came into her possession. On the contrary, the evidence is that, within about a week before her death, she spoke of the will being in the custody of the executor, and expressed satisfaction with its provisions. The testimony of the executor is that he placed the document with certain of her valuable papers; but he moved his place of residence and supposed that the papers were also moved, and on searching for the will after the death of the decedent he failed to find it. These facts are quite similar to those in Schultz v. Schultz, 35 N. Y. 653, and upon the authority of that case they require the inference that the will was in existence at the time of the death of the testatrix, or was fraudulently destroyed in her lifetime, within the meaning of those words as used in section 1865 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The declarations of the testatrix to the effect that she believed the will to he still in the custody in which she had placed it, and that it was a valid and unrevoked testamentary document, were competent to rehut any inference of revocation arising from its loss. Betts v. Jackson, 6 Wend. 173, 187, 188; Matter of Marsh, 45 Hun, 107; Patterson v. Hickey, 32 Ga. 156; Matter of Johnson, 40 Conn. 587. Declarations to sustain an alleged revocation of a will shown to he in existence and uninjured, stand upon a different ground, and are governed hy a different rule. Matter of Marsh, 45 Hun, 107; Waterman v. Whitney, 11 N. Y. 157; Eighmy v. People, 79 id. 546, 558. The lost instrument, as proved, will he admitted to probate. . Costs to proponent and special guardian out of the estate.

Probate decreed. Costs to proponent and special guardian.  