Cogswell v. Hall
| Decision Date | 18 June 1903 |
| Citation | 183 Mass. 575,67 N.E. 638 |
| Parties | COGSWELL v. HALL et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
John W. Pettingill and Marcellus Coggan, for appellants.
Everett C. Bumpus, F. E. H. Gary, and John B. Sullivan, Jr., for appellee Charles F. Cogswell.
Hannah Etta Cogswell, the testatrix, died leaving a will, in which she named Charles F. Cogswell and Newbert J. Hall as executors. Hall filed a petition for the probate of the will in the probate court, and in the petition stated that he was one of the persons named in the will as executors. After notice to all persons interested, the will was approved and allowed, and letters testamentary were issued to him. Charles F. Cogswell took an appeal from this decision, and the decree of the probate court was afterwards affirmed by the Supreme Judicial Court, which entered a decree as follows: 'This case came on to be heard, and thereupon, the appeal having been waived, upon consideration thereof, and upon the evidence presented, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the decree of the probate court, appealed from, dated July 25, A. D. 1900, allowing the will of Hannah Etta Cogswell deceased, as and for her last will and testament, and appointing said Charles F. Cogswell and said Newbert J. Hall executors thereof, be, and the same hereby is, affirmed, and the case remitted to said probate court for further proceedings.' There was a misrecital of the contents of the decree of the probate court in reference to the appointment of the executor; but the decree was plainly identified, and it was affirmed, and thereby Newbert J. Hall was appointed executor of the will by a final decree of the Supreme Judicial Court.
Afterwards upon a motion of Hall to modify the decree and correct the error, the decree was modified by striking out the words 'said Charles F. Cogswell and,' after the word 'appointing.' Then follows this language: 'It is further ordered that the said Charles F. Cogswell have leave to apply to the probate court by petition to be appointed coexecutor with Newbert J. Hall of the will of Hannah Etta Cogswell.' This sentence did not change the legal rights of the parties. It simply indicated that the judge who made the decree containing the misrecital, and who corrected the error, did not wish his decree to be considered as a decision upon the merits against an application of Cogswell to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guardianship of Smith
...option holder of Smith's stock would prevent him from faithfully discharging his duties as Smith's guardian. Compare Cogswell v. Hall, 183 Mass. 575, 67 N.E. 638 (1903) (one trying to enforce a claim against an estate is improper person to act as executor).13 Indeed, allegations made agains......
-
Osborne v. Craig
...‘if he is legally competent and a suitable person.’ See in this connection Bowditch v. Banuelos, 1 Gray, 220, 231, 232;Cogswell v. Hall, 183 Mass. 575, 67 N. E. 638. Decree ...
-
Grossman v. Grossman
...father's death makes him potentially a claimant against the estate and therefore unsuitable as an executor; citing Cogswell v. Hall, 183 Mass. 575, 576-577, 67 N.E. 638, where a petitioning coexecutor had actually brought suit against the estate. The short answer to this contention is that ......
-
Copeland v. Shapley
... ... The case is ... plainly distinguishable from Jewett v. Turner, 172 ... Mass. 496, 52 N.E. 1082, and Cogswell v. Hall, 183 ... Mass. 575, 67 N.E. 638, cited by the appellant. In each of ... these cases the power to appoint had been exhausted by a ... final ... ...