Barrett v. Briry
| Decision Date | 27 May 1926 |
| Citation | 256 Mass. 45,152 N.E. 79 |
| Parties | BARRETT et al. v. BRIRY et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
On Appeal and Report from Probate Court, Middlesex County; J. C. Leggat, Judge.
Petition by Harry W. Barrett and others for revocation of a decree allowing the first account of John F. Briry and another, executors under the will of Henry O. Barrett, deceased. On report and appeal by petitioners from a decree dismissing the petition. Affirmed.
J. Wiggin, of Boston, for petitioners.
P. G. Bolster, of Boston, for respondents.
In this petition to the probate court, it is alleged that the petitioners are heirs at law and residuary legatees under the will of Henry O. Barrett, who died in June, 1914; that John F. Briry and Clarence H. Bell were the executors of Barrett's will; that the inventory shows that the testator was the owner of an interest in five vessels; that the executors collected the dividends, and in April, 1916, their first account was filed and allowed, covering the period from July 1, 1914, to December 31, 1915; that the account included the dividends received to November, 1915, but did not include any further dividends, ‘and the interests in the vessels were not included in schedule C of the account’; that the petitioners assented to the account; that in December, 1917, a second account for the period from January 1, 1916, to August 31, 1917, was filed which did not include any dividends received from the interests in the vessels; that this account was objected to by the petitioners and has been referred to an auditor; that at the hearing before the auditor it appeared that the testator's interests in the vessels were sold by the executors to Briry, one of the executors, at the inventory price. The petitioners further allege that the sale was fraudulent, that Bell died in 1922, and that Edward J. Samson was appointed his executor. The petitioners pray that the decree of April 25, 1916, allowing the first account of the executors, be revoked. The petition was dismissed.
[1] The decree of the probate court denying the petition was proper. A petition for the revocation of a former decree is not to be sustained under the allegations of the petition. The estate was not finally settled. The second account had not been allowed by the court. The statute, G. L. c. 206, § 19, provides that:
‘Upon the settlement of an account, all former accounts of the same accountant which have not been settled according to section twenty-four * * * may be so far opened as to correct a mistake or error therein; but a matter in dispute, previously heard and determined by the court, shall not without leave of the court be again brought in question by any of the parties to such dispute.’
[2] It does not appear that the sale of the ships, as alleged in the petition, was disputed when the first account was allowed. The statute means that all items of an earlier account which have not already been contested may be investigated when a later account is brought before the court. This is settled by a long line of decisions. Blake v. Pegram. 101...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New England Trust Co. v. Paine
...c. 206, § 19. These statutes were held to permit a full and complete investigation of the items of the earlier accounts. Barrett v. Briry, 256 Mass. 45, 152 N.E. 79;Coulson v. Seeley, 277 Mass. 559, 562-563, 179 N.E. 171;Waitt v. Harvey, 312 Mass. 384, 396, 45 N.E.2d 1. There is nothing in ......
-
King v. Grace
...rule declared in Wyness v. Crowley, 198 N.E. 758, has no relevancy to these facts. See Blake v. Pegram, 101 Mass. 592, 598;Barrett v. Briry, 256 Mass. 45, 152 N.E. 79;Coulson v. Seeley, 277 Mass. 559, 563,179 N.E. 71. All the facts with reference to the services of the accountant are narrat......
-
Greene v. Springfield Safe Deposit & Trust Co.
... ... reopening of the account has ... [295 Mass. 152] ... been said to be unnecessary. Barrett v. Briry, 256 ... Mass. 45, 152 N.E. 79. See, also, Brackett v ... Fuller, 279 Mass. 62, 71, 180 N.E. 664; Bowles v ... Comstock, 286 Mass. 159, ... ...
-
New England Trust Co. v. Paine
...c. 206, Section 19. These statutes were held to permit a full and complete investigation of the items of the earlier accounts. Barrett v. Briry, 256 Mass. 45 . Coulson Seeley, 277 Mass. 559 , 562-563. Waitt v. Harvey, 312 Mass. 384 , 396. There is nothing in the record to show that any of t......