Ott v. Hogan
| Decision Date | 27 January 1926 |
| Citation | 150 N.E. 324,254 Mass. 491 |
| Parties | OTT v. HOGAN et ux. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Land Court, Middlesex County; C. T. Davis, Judge.
Petition by Harriett R. Ott to register title to land. Petition granted, and respondents, Thomas W. Hogan and wife, except. Exceptions overruled.
G. S. Ryan, of Boston, for petitioner.
C. G. Morgan, of Boston, for respondents.
This is a petition to register title to real estate. The material facts are that one Pyle died seized of the locus in June, 1923. The respondents, husband and wife, claim ownership of the locus under an alleged agreement with Pyle to take and hold title and subsequently convey the same to the respondent Mary C. Hogan as joint owner. A license was granted to the administratrix of Pyle's estate on July 3, 1923, to sell the premises for a stated sum for the payment of debts and charges. The administratrix, on or about July 16, 1923, pursuant to the license deeded the locus to Dora and Florence Ratner. On July 21, 1923, the respondent Mary C. Hogan, alleging herself to be creditor and joint owner with Pyle, filed in the probate court a petition in equity setting forth her claim of title to the locus and praying revocation of the license and injunction against sale, and she also appealed from the decree granting license to sell.
Respecting that appeal a rescript was received from the Supreme Judicial Court on November 19, 1923, to the effect that the appeal was discharged without prejudice. Prior to the coming down of that rescript, Dora and Florence Ratner brought an action of ejectment against the respondent Thomas W. Hogan for recovery of possession of the locus, basing their right to possession upon the deed of July 16, 1923, from the administratrix of the estate of Pyle. That action came to the Supreme Judicial Court, where it was held that title under the deed of the administratrix was invalid because the appeal from the decree granting license to sell stayed that decree and invalidated all action under it until affirmed. Ratner v. Hogan, 251 Mass. 163, 146 N. E. 249. On August 5, 1924, the administratrix of Pyle, without publication or notice to the respondents, filed her final account of administration and the same was allowed in the probate court. On February 6, 1925, without publication or notice to the respondents, the probate court entered a decree affirming its decree of July 3, 1923, authorizing the administratrix of Pyle to sell the locus. On February 11, 1925, the administratrix gave a new deed to the Ratners under the authority of the decrees of the probate court. The Ratners conveyed the locus to the petitioner by deed dated February 17, 1925.
At the trial in the land court, the respondents contended that their petition in equity and appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court were still in force and undisposed of. The judge of the land court gave opportunity to the respondents to petition the probate court for revocation of the decree of February 6, 1925, affirming the license of the administratrix of Pyle to sell the locus, and stated that if such petition were filed before a specified date the present petition would not be heard until the determination of such petition in the probate court. The respondents filed no petition and proposed to take no further action, contending that the matter was still open on the record of the probate court. The judge of the land court then ruled that it was bound by the probate court decree and allowed the petitioner to register title. Numerous requests for rulings were presented by the respondents, in general to the effect that the petitioner had no valid title to the locus, that the decrees purporting to grant license to the administratrix of Pyle to sell the estate were invalid, and that the respondents were the owners of the locus. All these were denied, subject to exception by the respondents.
[1][2][3] The probate court has original jurisdiction of petitions for license to sell real estate of a person deceased, intestate, to pay his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bourbeau v. Whittaker
...514, 515, 516, 107 N. E. 351,108 N. E. 492. See, also, Tighe v. Maryland Casualty Co., 216 Mass. 459, 103 N. E. 941;Ott v. Hogan, 254 Mass. 491, 493, 150 N. E. 324;Boucher v. Hamilton Manuf. Co., 259 Mass. 259, 267, 156 N. E. 424. It does not impinge at all upon the well-settled principle t......
-
Goss v. Donnell
...15, 113 N. E. 651;Phillips v. Phillips, 241 Mass. 47, 134 N. E. 375;Gallagher v. Sullivan, 251 Mass. 552, 146 N. E. 769;Ott v. Hogan, 254, mass. 491, 150 N. E. 324;Farquhar v. New England Trust Co., 260 Mass. --, 158 N. E. 836. We think that there is nothing contrary to this conclusion in N......
-
O'Connor v. Boyden
...836, and the cases there collected and reviewed. In view of that decision, no further discussion is necessary. See, also, Ott v. Hogan, 254 Mass. 491, 150 N. E. 324, and Allen v. Hunt, 213 Mass. 276, 279, 100 N. E. 552. Interlocutory decree affirmed. Final decree affirmed with ...
- Cali v. Caliri