Phelps v. Lowell Institution For Savings

• Decision Date: 23 May 1913
• Parties: PHELPS v. LOWELL INSTITUTION FOR SAVINGS.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

214 Mass. 560

101 N.E. 1065

PHELPS v. LOWELL INSTITUTION FOR SAVINGS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 23, 1913

COUNSEL

Delia C. Phelps, pro se.

Frederic

A Fisher, of Lowell, and Walter F. Fredericks, of Boston, for defendant.

OPINION

DE COURCY, J.

This is a suit in equity, wherein the plaintiff among other things seeks to redeem from certain mortgages sundry parcels of real estate in which she has an interest; and the cross-bill filed by the defendant for an accounting, is brought to determine the indebtedness to it under the mortgages and on a certain written agreement signed by the plaintiff. The issues raised by the bill and answer, and later those raised by the cross-bill and answer thereto, were referred to a master; his reports thereon were duly filed, and the plaintiff's exceptions to the same were overruled by this court on March 3, 1908. Phelps v. Lowell Institution for Savings, 198 Mass. 179, 83 N.E. 989.

Since that decision was rendered the plaintiff has filed in the case no fewer than 20 motions and claims of appeal, most of them apparently prepared by herself personally. With the exception of 3, with which we shall deal later, it would serve no useful purpose to dwell upon them at length. Several of them which purport to be appeals from orders referring the case to a master, or which relate to the conduct of the hearings before him were not seasonably claimed. Upon an examination of the voluminous record it is apparent that they relate to matters that were solely in the discretion of the court, and did not erroneously affect the final decree; consequently they are not now open to revision. R. L. c. 159, § 26; Houle v Abramson, 210 Mass. 83, 96 N.E. 77. The same is true of most of the subsequent appeals, such as that from the order denying her motion to amend the decree of May 9, 1908, and the one from the decree denying her motion to vacate all decrees or orders before that date. All proceedings subsequent to the rescript have been in accordance therewith, and are reviewable only upon matters of form. Nashua & Lowell Railroad v. Boston & Lowell Railroad, 169 Mass. 157, 162, 47 N.E. 606.

Upon the plaintiff's motion to remove the guardian ad litem appointed by the court to represent her, an order was made referring to a master the question of the necessity of a continuance of the guardianship. After a thorough investigation, during which there was evidence from expert alienists who had known the plaintiff previously, and her own testimony occupied more than four days, the master found that she was in such a condition mentally as to require a guardian ad litem. Her exceptions to the report of this special master were overruled and the report affirmed by a single justice; and the plaintiff appealed from this order. After a careful examination of the comprehensive report of the master, we are of opinion that his conclusions of fact were fully warranted by the evidence.

The interlocutory decree entered May 9, 1908, ordered and...