Collins v. Hillis

Decision Date16 March 1979
Citation7 Mass.App.Ct. 883,386 N.E.2d 1287
PartiesEileen O'Brien COLLINS et al. 1 v. Rose G. HILLIS et al. 2
CourtAppeals Court of Massachusetts

Joseph M. Cohen, Boston, for plaintiffs.

Walter E. Doherty, Jr., Boston (William E. Melahn, Boston, with him), for defendant.

Before HALE, C. J., and GRANT and PERRETTA, JJ.

RESCRIPT.

1. As the facts asserted in the sixth and seventh paragraphs of the affidavit of the plaintiff Collins would, if found at trial, support a judgment for money damages in favor of both plaintiffs against the defendant in her capacity as executrix (see Cromwell v. Norton, 193 Mass. 291, 292-293, 79 N.E. 433 (1906); Kemp v. Kemp, 248 Mass. 354, 357-358, 142 N.E. 779 (1924), and cases cited; Young v. Young, 251 Mass. 218, 221-222, 146 N.E. 574 (1925); Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 362 Mass. 1, 10-11, 284 N.E.2d 238 (1972)), it was error to dismiss the action under Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(b), 365 Mass. 824 (1974), insofar as relief is sought against the defendant as executrix. 2. It has not been argued that it was error to dismiss the action insofar as relief was sought against the defendant in her individual capacity. See Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). The present judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Probate Court, where (a) a final judgment is to be entered under the provisions of the first sentence of Mass.R.Civ.P. 54(b), 365 Mass. 821 (1974), which dismisses the action as to the defendant in her capacity as an individual and (b) the case is to stand for further proceedings, including the disposition of the counterclaims (if they are not waived); the plaintiffs are to have costs of appeal from the estate.

So ordered.

1 Ronald J. O'Brien.

2 Rose G. Hillis as executrix of the will of William J. Brenner.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Rudow v. Fogel
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • September 17, 1981
    ...v. Norton, 193 Mass. 291, 292-293, 79 N.E. 433 (1906); Kemp v. Kemp, 248 Mass. 354, 357-358, 142 N.E. 779 (1924); Collins v. Hillis, 7 Mass.App. 883, 386 N.E.2d 1287 (1979) (action by beneficiary of In determining that there was no constructive trust, the judge followed the traditional conf......
  • Meltzer v. Grant
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • March 28, 2002

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT