Knowles v. Newhall (In re Knowles' Estate)

• Citation: 21 N.E.2d 942,303 Mass. 385
• Parties: KNOWLES v. NEWHALL et al. In re KNOWLES' ESTATE.
• Decision Date: 29 June 1939
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

303 Mass. 385

21 N.E.2d 942

KNOWLES

v. NEWHALL et al.In re KNOWLES' ESTATE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

June 29, 1939.

Petition by Dorothy Knowles against Charles A. Newhall and another, executors of the will of Alice N. Knowles, to revoke a decree allowing the will. From a decree dismissing the petition, petitioner appeals.

Affirmed.Appeal from Probate Court, Norfolk County; McDoole, Judge.

H. F. Wood and J. L. Burns, both of Boston, for appellant.

C. M. Rogerson and R. W. Hardy, both of Boston, for appellee.

RONAN, Justice.

This is an appeal from a decree dismissing a petition to revoke a decree allowing the will of Alice N. Knowles. The petitioner, the adopted daughter of Mrs. Knowles, and her next of kin, had been more generously remembered in a previous will. She alleged that the testatrix was induced by fraud and undue influence exerted upon her by her brother, who was named one of the executors, to execute on January 6, 1938, shortly before her death, an instrument as her will; that the brother had falsely represented to the testatrix that it was substantially similar to the previous will; that Mrs. Knowles at the time she executed this instrument was incapable of executing a will; that the brother had failed to give the petitioner a copy of the will or to inform her as to her rights and that fraud had been practised upon the Probate Court by the fraudulent concealment of material facts in securing the allowance of the will.

The evidence was conflicting. It is unnecessary to narrate it. If believed, it was ample to show that none of the material allegations of the petition had been sustained. No findings of fact were made. The credibility of the witnesses was for the determination of the judge, who saw and heard them testify. Following the well settled rule in equity, which is also applicable to probate appeals, School Committee of Winchendon v. Selectmen of Winchendon, Mass., 15 N.E.2d 230, and cases cited, we cannot disturb the general finding in favor of the executors, as an examination of the oral testimony upon which it was based does not show that it was plainly wrong. Trade Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Peters, 291 Mass. 79, 195 N.E. 900;Markiewicus v. Methuen, Mass., 16 N.E.2d 32.

The Probate Court has ample power to correct or revoke decrees previously entered, on account of mistake, or for want of jurisdiction where it has been falsely induced to assume that it had jurisdiction, or for any cause deemed adequate...