Osborne v. Craig

CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Citation146 N.E. 263,251 Mass. 169
PartiesOSBORNE et al. v. CRAIG.
Decision Date31 January 1925

251 Mass. 169
146 N.E. 263

OSBORNE et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

Jan. 31, 1925.

Appeal from Probate Court, Essex County; H. R. Dow, Judge.

In the matter of the estate of one Osborne, deceased. Proceeding by Archer P. Osborne and another for appointment as executors, opposed by Eva W. Craig. From a decree appointing petitioner named as sole executor and refusing to appoint Roy W. Osborne, the latter appeals. Affirmed.

[251 Mass. 171]H. L. Burnham, of Boston, for appellant.

E. C. Jacobs and W. F. Carleton, both of Lynn, for respondent.


The testator died August 5, 1923. In his will his sons Roy W. Osborne and Archer P. Osborne were named as executors and trustees. His widow was given one-third of the estate, the remaining two-thirds to be divided among his children. The share of his daughter Eva W. Craig was to be held in trust, the income to be paid to her during her life, and at her death the principal was to be held for her children.

[146 N.E. 264]

If the income was not sufficient to support her, the trustees were given discretionary power to pay to her any portion or the whole of the principal. The executors, by a codicil, were given discretionary power to divide among the children certain personal property. In 1918 Roy W. Osborne, the appellant, was appointed executor of his aunt's will. The probate court found that he had failed, without adequate excuse, to administer that estate promptly; that his inventory and account were not filed until the year 1922, ‘and were only filed then because of the insistence of his sister, Eva W. Craig, and her attorney, although he knew that Mrs. Craig had an advantageous offer to sell a parcel of real estate the title to which in some manner depended upon the completion of his work as executor. By reason of his delay Mrs. Craig lost her opportunity to sell the property.’ The court further found the appellant and his sister, Mrs. Craig, do not speak to each other, are mutually antagonistic; that the testator's widow, the stepmother of the appellant, objected to his appointment; that it was doubtful if the appellant ‘would give proper consideration to the rights and wishes of his sister, Mrs. Craig, if called upon to exercise the discretionary powers given to him in the will and codicil.’ A decree was entered that Roy W. Osborne was not suitable for the trust; letters testamentary to be issued to Archer P. Osborne. From this decree appointing Archer P. Osborne the sole...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Olsson v. Waite
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • October 28, 1977
    ...Mass. 565, 566, 179 N.E.2d 900 (1962). Shattuck v. Wood Memorial Home, Inc., 319 Mass. 444, 445, 66 N.E.2d 568 (1946); Osborne v. Craig, 251 Mass. 169, 172, 146 N.E. 263 (1925). The citations of numerous additional decisions by this court on this point are collected in the footnotes to 2 G.......
  • Colbert v. Hennessey
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • June 15, 1966
    ...Co. v. Taylor, 317 Mass. 195, 196, 57 N.E.2d 573, we must give appropriate weight to his exercise of that discretion. Osborne v. Craig, 251 Mass. 169, 172, 146 N.E. 263; Long v. George, 296 Mass. 574, 579, 7 N.E.2d 149; Wasserman v. Locatelli, 343 Mass. 82, 83, 175 N.E.2d 914; Cooney v. Mon......
  • Lindsey v. Ogden
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • June 30, 1980
    ...and not supported by the evidence." Grossman v. Grossman, 343 Mass. 565, 566, 179 N.E.2d 900, 901 (1962), quoting from Osborne v. Craig, 251 Mass. 169, 172, 146 N.E. 263 (1925). See Foley v. Coan, 272 Mass. 207, 209, 172 N.E. 74 (1930); Markell v. Sidney B. Pfeifer Foundation, Inc., Mass.Ap......
  • Allen v. Allen
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • July 3, 1950
    ...the judge had the advantage of having seen and heard the witnesses. Oliver v. Oliver, 151 Mass. 349, 350, 24 N.E. 51; Osborne v. Craig, 251 Mass. 169, 172, 146 N.E. 263; Jenkins v. Jenkins, 304 Mass. 248, 252, 23 N.E.2d 405. Although it is unfortunate that the children are not to be brought......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT