Moseley v. Moseley
| Citation | 132 N.E. 418,240 Mass. 22 |
| Parties | MOSELEY v. MOSELEY et al. |
| Decision Date | 18 October 1921 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Probate Court, Hampden County.
Petition by George O. Moseley against Harry K. Moseley and others. Decree dismissing the petition, and petitioner appeals. Affirmed.Clinton E. Bell, of Springfield, for appellant.
J. Lyman Gray and Raymond T. King, both of Springfield, for appellee Moseley.
Frederic A. Ballou, of Springfield, for appellee Parker.
In this petition, dated April 9, 1921, in the probate court of Hampden county, it is alleged that pursuant to a petition for partition and sale of certain real estate a commissionerwas appointed and the property sold at public auction January 12, 1921, to Harry K. Moseley, hereafter referred to as the respondent. It is stated that in February, 1911, the petitioner and the respondent entered into an agreement in writing (a copy of which is annexed to the bill) which provided for the support of their mother; and she, together with the petitioner, the respondent and John M. Noble were parties to it. It stipulated that the respondent was to board and care for his mother during her lifetime and was to have the use and income of the estate therein described during her lifetime or as long as he continued to support her, and he was to pay all taxes and keep the buildings in ordinary repair. The contract also contained provisions for the payment of expenses for painting, plumbing and shingling the house, for the payment by the petitioner and John M. Noble of a certain sum to the mother each week, and that the expenses for nursing and care of the mother in case of sickness, her funeral expense and the funeral expenses of the late John Moseley were to be borne by the petitioner, the respondent and John M. Noble. It was agreed that the farming tools belonging to the late John Moseley were to belong to the respondent; and the contract also contained stipulations relating to the cutting of wood and timber and the disposition of the hay and grain on the premises. The mother died in August, 1918. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner has performed all the covenants and agreements to be by him performed according to the written contract; that the respondent has failed to pay the taxes, has failed to pay rent for the premises and has neglected to perform the covenants made in his behalf, to the damage of the petitioner. It is also alleged that the petitioner is not a resident of this commonwealth; that the respondent recovered judgment against him by default in the superior court for Hampden county; that no service of the writ was made upon him; that the cause of action upon which judgment was obtained was for ‘contribution for repairs'; and that he has a good defense to said action. The prayer of the petition is for the court to hear and determine all matters of accounting between the parties, for the appointment of a receiver and the distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the real estate. The respondent demurred. The demurrer was sustained. A decree was entered dismissing the bill, and the petitioner appealed.
Under G. L. c. 241, § 25, the probate court in partition proceedings is given jurisdiction in equity over all matters relating to the partition, and in case of sale over the distribution of the proceeds; to hear and determine all matters of accounting between the parties to the petition in reference to the common land, and to appoint one or more receivers. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Asker v. Asker
...which the plaintiff, according to the defendant's answer, "removed from the premises and converted to his own use." Moseley v. Moseley, 240 Mass. 22, 25, 132 N.E. 418 (1921). The decree of February 8, 1977, is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this o......
-
Stylianopoulos v. Stylianopoulos
...power "to hear and determine all matters of accounting between the parties in reference to the common land." See Moseley v. Moseley, 240 Mass. 22, 25, 132 N.E. 418 (1921); O'Connor v. Boyden, 268 Mass. 111, 115, 167 N.E. 268 (1929). In that connection the task of the court is to make the po......
-
O'Connor v. Boyden
...Of course, other matters having only a remote connection with petitions for partition are not within that jurisdiction. Moseley v. Moseley, 240 Mass. 22, 132 N. E. 418. The allegations of the present bill are based on facts intimately interwoven with the petition for partition. They are fou......
-
Mitchell v. Weaver
...494, 496, 98 N. E. 596. The cases of Baldwin v. Wilbraham, 140 Mass. 459, 4 N. E. 829, Abbott v. Gaskins, supra, and Moseley v. Moseley, 240 Mass. 22, 132 N. E. 418, relied on by the defendants are distinguishable for reasons sufficiently stated. Williams v. Nelson, 228 Mass. 191, 194, 117 ......