Burroughs v. White
| Decision Date | 14 September 1923 |
| Citation | 246 Mass. 258 |
| Parties | HARRY F. BURROUGHS v. WILLIAM O. WHITE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
March 21, 1923.
Present: RUGG, C.
J., DE COURCY CROSBY, PIERCE, & CARROLL, JJ.
Probate Court Framing of jury issues.
On an appeal from a decree of the Probate Court denying a motion for jury issues entered after a hearing where no testimony was presented and only statements of counsel as to the evidence which they expected to introduce were considered by the judge, the decree was affirmed, although the question was a close one and one on which judges well might
differ. Following Clark v.
PETITION, filed in the Probate Court for the County of Suffolk on May 5, 1922 for the proof of an alleged will of Minnie M. Ingraham, late of Winthrop.
William O. White, a brother of the alleged testatrix, opposed the petition and filed a motion that the following issues be framed for trial by jury in the Superior Court:
The motion was heard by Prest, J., a stenographer having been appointed under G.L.c. 215, Section 18. No evidence was heard, but counsel for the contestant and for the petitioner, respectively, made statements.
J. W. Sullivan, (J.
F. Doyle with him,) for the respondent.
F. C. Gorman, for the petitioner.
This is an appeal from an order by a probate judge denying a motion to frame issues to a jury on a petition for the allowance of a will. It was heard and decided and comes before us on appeal on statement by counsel for the contestant of expected proof.
The governing principles of law have been stated in the opinion in Clark v McNeil, ante, 250, just decided, and need not be repeated. Fuller v. Sylvia, 240 Mass. 49 . Cook v. Mosher, 243 Mass. 149 .
It would serve no useful purpose to narrate the statement of facts. The case is very close. Some of us would have granted the issues. But we all are of opinion, though with hesitation, that the decision of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McIntosh v. McIntosh
...to those here shown and where refusals to frame issues have been upheld. Clark v. McNeil, 246 Mass. 250, 140 N. E. 922;Burroughs v. White, 246 Mass. 258, 140 N. E. 940;Cummins v. McCawley, 241 Mass. 427, 135 N. E. 479;Wilbar v. Diamond, 249 Mass. 568, 144 N. E. 462;Adams v. Blair, 255 Mass.......
-
McCormack v. Quilty
...240 Mass. 49, 133 N. E. 384;Cook v. Mosher, 243 Mass. 149, 137 N. E. 299; Clark v. McNeil, 246 Mass. 250, 140 N. E. 922;Burroughs v. White, 246 Mass. 258, 140 N. E. 940. One of the requested issues was whether the decedent was of sound mind at the time of the execution of the alleged will. ......
-
Allen v. Guarente
...240 Mass. 49, 133 N. E. 384;Cook v. Mosher, 243 Mass. 149, 137 N. E. 299; Clark v. McNeil, 246 Mass. 250, 140 N. E. 922;Burroughs v. White, 246 Mass. 258, 140 N. E. 940. There was statement of expected evidence from the family physician of the decedent of such nature that it cannot be prono......
-
Bemis v. Andrews
...573, 144 N. E. 462;Crockett v. Snow, 258 Mass. 133, 136, 154 N. E. 549;Daly v. Hussey, 275 Mass. 28, 30, 174 N. E. 916;Burroughs v. White, 246 Mass. 258, 140 N. E. 940; Clark v. McNeil, 246 Mass. 250, 255, 256, 140 N. E. 922. In the opinion of a majority of the court there was no error of l......