Costello v. Conlon
| Decision Date | 03 May 1962 |
| Citation | 344 Mass. 754,182 N.E.2d 532 |
| Parties | Michael F. COSTELLO v. Kathryn E. CONLON et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
William H. McSoley, Jr., Providence, R. I. (Quentin J. Geary, Providence, R. I., with him), for contestant.
Richard K. Martin, Taunton, for proponent.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, KIRK and SPIEGEL, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The contestant appeals from a decree allowing a will and one codicil, in which Mr. Costello, the decedent's Rhode Island lawyer, was named as executor. There is no report of material facts. The evidence, which is reported, amply supports the conclusions that the decedent had her domicil in Massachusetts at her death on October 26, 1960, when nearly 94, and that she had testamentary capacity in 1957 when the will and codicil were executed. One witness to the codicil had moved to Connecticut and was in poor health. Her testimony was not essential. See Finer v. Steuer, 255 Mass. 611, 616, 152 N.E. 220; Goodwin v. Riordan, 333 Mass. 317, 318, 130 N.E.2d 569. A finding was justified that there was no undue influence by Mr. Costello, who was bequeathed about $16,000 from an estate of about $114,000. He did not draw the will and codicil and was not shown to have been present when they were signed or discussed. The judge did not order, as requested by the contestant's attorney, the production by Mr. Costello of certain documents which he had delivered to his counsel. The examination by the contestant's attorney of most of the witnesses, including Mr. Costello, was repetitious and unduly prolonged. After a number of warnings about repetition of inquiry and the need of more relevant questions, the judge cut off this attorney's examination of Mr. Costello. In the absence of indication of unexplored relevant areas about which the attorney wished to make inquiry, and where the attorney had not taken advantage of all usual opportunities for examination of Mr. Costello and of his counsel with respect to the documents, we cannot say that the judge abused his discretion in restricting the examination as he did.
Decree affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Brien v. Costello
...capacity when the documents in question were executed, and that no undue influence was exercised over her by Costello. Costello v. Conlon, 344 Mass. 754, 182 N.E.2d 532. O'Brien had constructive notice of these proceedings but never appeared and was never personally The Pawtucket probate co......
-
Gordon v. Levy
...163; Finer v. Steuer, 255 Mass. 611, 615--616, 152 N.E. 220; Goodwin v. Riordan, 333 Mass. 317, 318, 130 N.E.2d 569; Costello v. Conlon, 344 Mass. 754, 182 N.E.2d 532. The judge found that the decedent was of sound mind at the time of making the will, and we cannot say that finding is plain......
-
LaCroix v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Methuen
...of questions and the introduction of evidence. The court is not bound to allow repetitive and irrelevant examiantion. Costello v. Conlon, Mass., 182 N.E.2d 532. 1 It was not error to decline to continue the case to allow the petitioners' attorney to obtain more witnesses. The judge found th......