Hayden v. Keown

• Decision Date: 27 February 1919
• Parties: A. FRANCIS HAYDEN, administrator de bonis non with the will annexed, v. JAMES A. KEOWN.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

232 Mass. 259

A. FRANCIS HAYDEN, administrator de bonis non with the will annexed, v. JAMES A. KEOWN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

February 27, 1919

January 7 1919.

Present: RUGG, C.

J., BRALEY, CROSBY & PIERCE, JJ.

Probate Court Appeal.

An appeal from a decree of the Probate Court appointing an administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of the estate of a testator was attempted to be taken by a person who described himself as "attorney for certain Wisconsin legatees," but the objections to the decree filed by this person did not purport to be made in behalf of such legatees.

Thereafter this person filed a motion to amend his "claim of appeal" by "adding to the claim of appeal and to the objections" references to persons named as legatees and praying that they be allowed to join in the appeal. The motion was heard by a single justice of this court, who found that the persons named as legatees were parties to the original proceeding and were represented by another person as attorney, who did not appeal in their behalf from the decree of the Probate Court. The single justice denied the motion to amend on its merits and no report of the evidence was made. Held, that the finding of the single justice was final.

A person is not aggrieved by a decree of the Probate Court, so as to have a right of appeal under R.L.c. 162, Section 9, merely because he had been the attorney concerning other matters for certain of the persons named as legatees, even if he was an unsecured creditor of such legatees.

One, who was the administrator with the will annexed of the estate of a certain testator and was removed as such administrator by a decree of the Probate Court, is not aggrieved by a subsequent decree of the same court appointing his successor as such administrator.

For the same reason it is right to deny a motion of such removed administrator to stay the proceedings for the appointment of his successor until his appeal from the decree of the Probate Court removing him can be determined.

By R.L.c. 162 Section 10, a person appealing to the Supreme Judicial Court from a decree of the Probate Court is confined to the objections filed by him in accordance with the requirement of that section of the statute.

APPEAL from a decree of the Probate Court of Suffolk County appointing A. Francis Hayden administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of Anne Fagan, late of Boston, in place of James A. Keown, who had been removed as such administrator.

The motion "to amend the claim of appeal," which is described in the opinion, was heard by Carroll, J., who denied the motion and made an order that a final decree be entered dismissing the appeal in accordance with a previous order of the Supreme Judicial Court. The appellant appealed from the order.

The appellant filed a motion for a stay of proceedings, which was denied by Carroll, J., on May 28, 1918. On the same day the single justice made a final decree appointing A. Francis Hayden administrator with the will annexed of the estate of Anne Fagan not already administered and remanding the case to the Probate Court for further proceedings.

On the same day the appellant filed the following appeal: "Now comes James A. Keown, administrator in the above-entitled case and attorney for Kate White et als., certain Wisconsin legatees, and appeals to the Supreme Judicial Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from a final decree entered on May 24, 1918, dismissing the appeal of the administrator in the said estate."

J. A. Keown, pro se. W. F. Poole, for the administrator de bonis non.

RUGG, C. J. The appellant, having been appointed administrator with the will annexed of the estate of Anne Fagan, was thereafter removed as such administrator by a decree of the Probate Court. It is stated in several of the papers printed in the record that he appealed from that decree, but nothing appears touching the disposition of that appeal. On March 18, 1918, and after the said removal, the appellee was appointed administrator with the will annexed of the estate of the testatrix not already administered. The appeal of the appellant from that decree is the matter presented on this record.

The material statements in the claim of appeal are that the appellant "is a former administrator with the will annexed, and attorney for certain Wisconsin legatees of Anne Fagan that he is aggrieved by a decree of the Probate Court whereby said court appeared to appoint A. Francis Hayden . . . administrator de bonis non with the will annexed." It is signed "James A. Keown Pro se and Attorney for Certain Wisconsin Legatees." The objections to the decree which were filed appear to be grounded on matters affecting the appellant alone and do not mention any claim by or harm to the interests of the legatees. The objections are signed by the appellant solely as "Administrator with the Will Annexed, Estate of Anne Fagan," and do not purport to be presented in behalf of the Wisconsin legatees. Thereafter, a motion was filed seeking to amend the "claim of appeal" by "adding to the claim of appeal and to the objections"...