Cole v. Cole
| Decision Date | 02 October 1931 |
| Citation | 277 Mass. 50,177 N.E. 810 |
| Parties | COLE v. COLE et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Worcester County; Whiting, Judge.
Action by Edward D. Cole against Bertha R. Cole and trustees. From an order sustaining a demurrer to plaintiff's declaration, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
C. E. Tupper, of Worcester, for appellant.
G. H. Mason, of Worcester, for appellees.
The defendant's demurrer to the plaintiff's declaration was sustained on the grounds that it failed to set forth concisely and with substantial certainty the substantive facts necessary to constitute the cause of action and that it did not contain any single, clear and distinct cause of action. The writ describes the action as sounding in tort.
The declaration states in substance that the plaintiff is a brother of the defendant; that by an agreement entered into between him and his mother within ten years last past, the plaintiff at the request of his mother promised and agreed to live near, consult with, and assist her at her home and visit her as often as convenient and whenever he could during the remainder of her life, in consideration of her promise to him to consult with him, consider the family affairs from time to time and their mutual welfare, keep the home where she was living maintained intact and open to him and his family with all the advantages which its hospitality could afford during her lifetime; that he enjoyed the most cordial relations with his mother until March, 1928; that she is an elderly woman, at that time being about eighty-four years of age, and is in possession of a large estate; that they had preserved the natural affection which normally exists between mother and son, and up to the date mentioned she had requested and insisted on his visiting her as often as he conveniently could and that he frequently visited her; that the defendant came to her mother's house in March, [277 Mass. 52]1928, and immediately excluded the plaintiff from it; that his mother had the title to the property on which she lived, and since March, 1928, the defendant has continuously maintained and enforced the exclusion of the plaintiff, although she knew of the status, relationship and agreement; that the plaintiff had a right to see his mother pursuant to her request, and attempted to see her on different occasions when the defendant was in her house, but has been prevented from doing so by the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferriter v. Daniel O'Connell's Sons, Inc.
...on its head, with the child as master, 8 the question of the child's action does not appear in our cases until 1931. Cole v. Cole, 277 Mass. 50, 177 N.E. 810 (1931). Furthermore, the question was not clearly presented until Nelson v. Richwagen, 326 Mass. 485, 95 N.E.2d 545 (1950). See White......
-
Granger v. Johnson
...his invalid wife to frustrate her desire to visit her son and his family. Our Brother Doris, dissenting, relies upon Cole v. Cole, 277 Mass. 50, 177 N.E. 810 (1931), in which the court sustained a demurrer to a declaration alleging that the plaintiff's sister had wrongfully interfered with ......
-
Sears v. Treasurer and Receiver General
...36-37, 147 N.E. 30; Taylor v. Neal, 260 Mass. 427, 439, 157 N.E. 646; Christiansen v. Dixon, 271 Mass. 475, 171 N.E. 451; Cole v. Cole, 277 Mass. 50, 177 N.E. 810; Bowles v. Clark, 326 Mass. 31, 92 N.E.2d 363. But in our opinion the petition in this instance does not call for such drastic t......
-
Hankins v. Derby, 55438
...is only within recent years that the question has even been raised. (Coulter v. Coulter, 1923, 73 Colo. 144, 214 P. 400; Cole v. Cole, 1931, 277 Mass. 50, 177 N.E. 810; Morrow v. Yannantuono, 1934, 152 Misc. 134, 273 N.Y.S. 912, all denying liability.) Since 1923 some eleven courts have hel......