Appeal of Bronson
| Decision Date | 02 March 1940 |
| Parties | Appeal of BRONSON. In re DENNIS' ESTATE. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
On Appeal and Exceptions from Superior Court, Penobscot County.
Proceeding in the matter of the estate of Albra A. Dennis, deceased, wherein Helen H. Branson's appeal from the decree of the judge of probate for Penobscot County allowing the second account of William H. Waterhouse, former trustee under the will of Albra A. Dennis, deceased, was denied in the Supreme Court of Probate. Exceptions there reserved, accompanied by an appeal to the law court, are sent forward for review.
Appeal dismissed and exceptions overruled.
Argued before DUNN, C. J., and STURGIS, BARNES, THAXTER, HUDSON, and MANSER, JJ.
Bernard Gibbs, of Madison, for appellant.
Stanley F. Needham, of Old Town, for appellee.
This case arises out of an appeal from the Decree of the Judge of Probate for Penobscot County allowing the second account of William H. Waterhouse, former Trustee under the will of Albra A. Dennis, late of Greenbush, deceased. In the Supreme Court of Probate, the appeal was denied. Exceptions there reserved, accompanied by an appeal to the Law Court, are sent forward for review.
The appeal must be dismissed. A decree of a Justice of the Supreme Court of Probate under the statutes of this State cannot be reviewed on appeal. Tuck v. Bean, 130 Me. 277, 155 A. 277; Cotting v. Tilton, 118 Me. 91, 106 A. 113.
The Bill of Exceptions recites that at the hearing in the Supreme Court of Probate the appellant offered a certified copy of the inventory which the Executor of the Estate of the testatrix, Albra A. Dennis, filed in the original administration proceedings and it was excluded and exception noted. What the inventory would have shown does not appear. It should have been printed as a part of the Bill of Exceptions. Not being printed, it is impossible to determine whether its exclusion was prejudicial error. The excepting party is bound to see that the bill of exceptions includes all that is necessary to enable the court to decide whether the rulings of which he complains were or were not erroneous. Failing so to do, his exception must fail. Gross v. Martin, 128 Me. 445, 148 A. 680; Richardson v. Lalumiere, 134 Me. 224, 184 A. 392.
The remaining Exception is directed generally and indiscriminately to the judgment below denying the appeal from the probate court of original jurisdiction without assignment of the specific error of law upon which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradford v. Davis Same
...whether the rulings of which he complains were or were not erroneous. Failing to do so, his exceptions must fail.’ Appeal of Bronson, 136 Me. 401, 402, 11 A.2d 613; Small v. Sacramento Nav. & Min. Co., 40 Me. 274. If a true bill of exceptions is presented to the presiding justice and he doe......
-
Inhabitants of Town of Owls Head v. Dodge
...show the claims and contentions of the parties, and enough of facts, allegations, or claims as to be clearly understood. Appeal of Bronson, 136 Me. 401, 402, 11 A.2d 613; Bradford v. Davis, 143 Me. 124, 128, 56 A.2d 68; Appeal of Heath, 146 Me. 229, 232, 233, 79 A.2d 810. The issues present......
-
Appeal of Heath
...Court only by exceptions. Cotting v. Tilton's Estate, 118 Me. 91, 106 A. 113; Tuck v. Bean, 130 Me. 277, 155 A. 277; Appeal of Bronson, Aplt., 136 Me. 401, 11 A.2d 613; and Appeal of Edwards, Aplt., 141 Me. 219, 41 A.2d 825. Exceptions reach only errors in law. Clapp v. Balch, 3 Me. 216; La......
-
Roebuck & Co. v. City Of Portland
...upon ‘appeal’ or ‘motion’ which should be presented to it by ‘bill of exceptions'. Edwards, Appeal of, supra; Bronson, Appeal of, 136 Me. 401, 11 A.2d 613; Tuck v. Bean, 130 Me. 277, 155 A. 277; Heim v. Coleman, 125 Me. 478, 135 A. 33; Tozier, Coll. v. Woodworth and Land, 136 Me. 364, 10 A.......