Brignati v. Medenwald
| Decision Date | 06 March 1944 |
| Parties | BRIGNATI v. MEDENWALD. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Essex County; Jos. E. Warner, Judge.
Action of tort by Florence Emma Brignati against Alice L. Medenwald for damages for causing plaintiff's father to make a will favorable to defendant and unfavorable to plaintiff. The court directed a verdict for defendant, and plaintiff brings exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
Before FIELD, C. J., and DONAHUE, QUA, and RONAN, JJ.
J. B. Bagdoian, of Lawrence, for plaintiff.
J. H. O'Neil, of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action of tort. The third count of the declaration, with which we are now concerned, alleges that the plaintiff was the only child and heir of Chester H. Janvrin; that ‘she had a claim to his remembrance, to his bounty, and was entitled to inherit the estate of her said father, through the natural course of events; that the defendant, during the last year of her father's life, kept her father in the defendant's home and while her father was in the defendant's home as aforesaid, denied the plaintiff and other relatives of the late Chester H. Janvrin from seeing him; that the defendant exercised undue and improper influence on him; that the defendant talked to the plaintiff's father against the plaintiff and so influenced the mind of the said father as to cause the father to be under the delusion that his only daughter was against him and unfriendly to him and thus caused the father to make a will favorable to the defendant and unfavorable to the plaintiff and thus deprived the plaintiff, his only daughter, who had a natural claim to his bounty, of all benefits of her father's estate all to her great damage as alleged in her writ.’ After the plaintiff's counsel had made an opening to the jury, the judge, subject to the plaintiff's exception, directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant on the ground that the count did not set forth a legal cause of action.
We do not know what counsel said to the jury in his opening remarks. If his opening statement demonstrated that he intended to offer evidence which, if believed, would constitute a cause of action, he could have requested an opportunity to amend the count, but the record does not show that he sought an amendment. Energy Electric Co., Petitioner, 262 Mass. 534, 160 N.E. 278;Gray v. Boston, 277 Mass. 166, 178 N.E. 286;Urban v. Central Massachusetts Electric Co., 301 Mass. 519, 17 N.E.2d 718. And notwithstanding any action that might previously have been taken by some other judge sustaining the sufficiency of the count as a pleading, Peterson v. Hopson, 306 Mass. 597, 29 N.E.2d 140, 132 A.L.R. 1, the judge hearing the case on the merits could direct a verdict for the defendant if the facts alleged or offered in proof did not constitute a cause of action. Oulighan v. Butler, 189 Mass. 287, 289, 75 N.E. 726;Murphy v. Russell, 202 Mass. 480, 481, 89 N.E. 107;Mitchell v. Lonergan, 285 Mass. 266, 271, 189 N.E. 39.
The wrong complained of is the procurement of a will in the defendant's favor by the exercise of undue influence upon the plaintiff's father, which the plaintiff alleges resulted in depriving her of ‘all benefits of her father's estate.’ The instrument executed by her father could not have transferred any of the estate to the defendant or deprived the plaintiff of any part of the estate unless it had been admitted to probate. G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 191, § 7; Solis v. Williams, 205 Mass. 350, 355, 91 N.E. 148. The only method provided by our law for the ascertainment of the validity of an instrument purporting to be the last will of a resident decedent is by a decree of the Probate Court for the county in which the decedent was domiciled at the time of his death. Kennedy v. Simmons, 308 Mass. 431, 32 N.E.2d 215; Slater v. Munroe, 313 Mass. 538, 48 N.E.2d 149, and the allowance or disallowance of the instrument as a will is final and conclusive upon all the parties. Farquhar v. New England Trust Co., 261 Mass. 209, 158 N.E. 836;Hogarth-Swann v. Weed, 274 Mass. 125, 174 N.E. 314. If this will was admitted to probate over the objection of the plaintiff, she would have no right, while such a decree stood, to litigate that question again in this action of tort. Brigham v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Meadowcroft
... ... Wilson, 150 Kan. 794, 96 P.2d 880, 888 (1940); Allen v. Lovell's Adm'x, 303 Ky. 238, 197 S.W.2d 424 (1946); Brignati v. Medenwald, 315 Mass. 636, 53 N.E.2d 673, 674 (1944) ... We have adopted the tort of wrongful or malicious interference with ... ...
-
Litherland v. Jurgens
...Axe v. Wilson, 150 Kan. 794, 96 P.2d 880 (1939); Allen v. Lovell's Adm'x, 303 Ky. 238, 197 S.W.2d 424 (1946); Brignati v. Medenwald, 315 Mass. 636, 53 N.E.2d 673 (1944); Gianella v. Gianella, 234 S.W.3d 526 (Mo. App. 2007); Griffin v. Baucom, 74 N.C. App. 282, 328 S.E.2d 38 (1985). These co......
-
Nemeth v. Banhalmi, 83-1624
... ... McGregor (D.Colo.1951), 101 F.Supp. 848) or that the will which was submitted to probate was procured by undue influence (see, e.g., Brignati v. Medenwald (1944), 315 Mass. 636, 53 N.E.2d 673; Johnson v. Stevenson (1967), 269 N.C. 200, 152 S.E.2d 214). Under those circumstances, courts ... ...
-
Litherland v. Jurgens
...; Axe v. Wilson, 150 Kan. 794, 96 P.2d 880 (1939) ; Allen v. Lovell's Adm'x, 303 Ky. 238, 197 S.W.2d 424 (1946) ; Brignati v. Medenwald, 315 Mass. 636, 53 N.E.2d 673 (1944) ; Gianella v. Gianella, 234 S.W.3d 526 (Mo. App. 2007) ; Griffin v. Baucom, 74 N.C.App. 282, 328 S.E.2d 38 (1985). The......