Hanson v. Hanson
| Decision Date | 20 December 1926 |
| Parties | HANSON v. HANSON (two cases). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; J. H. Sisk, Judge.
Scire facias proceedings by Rose E. Hanson against Carrie I. Hanson, executrix under the will of Isaac W. Hanson, and petition by Rose E. Hanson to revise, modify, alter or change a decree for payment of alimony to her, opposed by Carrie I. Hanson, executrix, etc. On exceptions of Rose E. Hanson to denial of motion for new trial and to denial of petition for modification of decree. Exceptions overruled, and decree dismissing petition affirmed.
See, also, 151 N. E. 80.
N. Barnett, of Boston, for plaintiff.
W. F. McCormack, of Dorchester, for respondent.
[1] The first of these bills of exceptions was allowed respecting the denial of a motion made by the plaintiff in scire facias for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The proceeding in which this motion was filed was a scire facias to collect an award of alimony in a divorce proceeding terminated by decree in favor of the libelant in 1895. The motion was supported by affidavits, and no counter affidavits were filed or other evidence submitted. There was no error of law in the refusal to give rulings requested or in the denial of the motion. The judge may have found that the facts set forth in the affidavits did not affect the grounds of his decision, or he may have placed no reliance on the affidavits. The whole matter rested in sound judicial discretion, which plainly was not abused. Damm v. Boylston, 218 Mass. 557, 106 N. E. 177;Davis v. Boston Elevated Railway, 235 Mass. 482, 496, 497, 126 N. E. 841;Commonwealth v. Devereaux, 256 Mass. --, 153 N. E. 881.
[2] The second bill of exceptions relates to a petition by the same libelant in the same divorce proceedings to revise, modify, alter, or change a decree for her support and to award an additional sum in the nature of alimony. On the trial of this petition, evidence was offered by the petitioner to the effect that an instrument purporting to be signed by her and approved by the court, and thus constituting a final decision touching the subject of alimony, was not signed by her and was a forgery. This evidence was excluded and the petition was dismissed, all subject to exception. In this there was no error. In the scire facias proceedings to collect alimony alleged to be due under the decree in divorce, the trial judge found that the petitioner in 1895 signed, with knowledge of its contents, an acknowledgment of the receipt of two hundred dollars in full satisfaction of past due and all future alimony, and consented that the decree as to alimony theretofore entered by, revoked and dismissed, and that two hundred dollars was then paid her. This court held in Hanson v. Hanson, 255 Mass. 238, 151 N. E. 80, that that decision was free from error in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Lopes
...a conclusion would be within this judicial discretion. Commonwealth v. Devereaux, 257 Mass. 391, 395, 153 N. E. 881;Hanson v. Hanson, 258 Mass. 45, 46, 154 N. E. 525;Waverley Lumber Co. v. Piantedosi, 262 Mass. 377, 382, 160 N. E. 268;Carrato v. Miller, 264 Mass. 533, 534, 163 N. E. 251. In......
-
Barringer v. Northride
...suit, to warrant present consideration of it. Reynolds v. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co., 224 Mass. 253, 254, 112 N. E. 859;Hanson v. Hanson, 258 Mass. 45, 47, 154 N. E. 525. The rights of the plaintiff against the trustee in trustee process, and his rights against the main defendant, are so far ......
-
DeLuca v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
...to believe the affidavits, in whole or in part, even in particulars with respect to which there was no contradiction. Hanson v. Hanson, 258 Mass. 45, 46, 154 N.E. 525;Thomajanian v. Odabshian, 272 Mass. 19, 22, 172 N.E. 232;Commonwealth v. Gwizdoski, 284 Mass. 578, 581, 188 N.E. 383;Commonw......
-
Antonio Lopes's Case
...of his decision. Such a conclusion would be within his judicial discretion. Commonwealth v. Devereaux, 257 Mass. 391 , 395. Hanson v. Hanson, 258 Mass. 45, 46. Lumber Co. v. Piantedosi, 262 Mass. 377 , 382. Cerrato v. Miller, 264 Mass. 533 , 534. In the case at bar the board in denying the ......