Lena Baumann, Respondent v. Henry C. Steingester, Defendants, and Magdalena Fuhge, Appellant

Summary

The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's judgment, holding that parol evidence is admissible to resolve the latent ambiguity in the will and that the attorney‑client privilege does not apply because the testatrix's instructions were given in the presence of a non‑confidential third party. Consequently, the attorney's testimony was admissible and a new trial was ordered.