Raposa v. Oliveira
| Decision Date | 02 January 1924 |
| Citation | 141 N.E. 870,247 Mass. 188 |
| Parties | RAPOSA v. OLIVEIRA. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Bristol County; Joseph Walsh, Judge.
Petition by Mary Raposa to prove the will of Joseph Avila Bettencourt, contested by Maria De G. B. Oliveira. Verdict for petitioner, and contestant brings exceptions. Exceptions sustained.
T. F. O'Brien and Frank Vera, both of New Bedford, for petitioner.
Moses Entin, of Fall River, for contestant.
This is a petition to prove the will of Joseph Avila Bettencourt, late of New Bedford. Three issues for a jury were framed in the probate court and sent to the superior court for trial. At the first trial, the jury found that the instrument was legally executed, and that the testator was of sound mind at the time; but they disagreed on the issue whether the will was ‘procured to be made by fraud or undue influence of Joseph Raposa, Joseph Raposa, Jr., and Mary Raposa, or any of them exercised upon’ the said testator. The second trial was confined to this issue. The contestant presented three witnesses and rested. The petitioner thereupon rested, and moved that the court instruct the jury to answer the issue, ‘No.’ This motion was allowed subject to the contestant's exception.
On the evidence introduced the jury would be warranted in finding the following facts: The testator was about 55 years of age, had been in poor health for some time, and was unable to read or write. He had two bank books, a mortgage, and two notes, one for $1,700 and the other for $350. For 7 years he had intrusted these to the custody of one Anna Perry, who attended to his business affairs. His only living relative was a sister, the contestant, Maria Oliveira, who lives in the Azores. She often wrote to him, and he frequently sent money to her. More than once he told people that he intended to remember his sister in his will, and as late as a week before his death, when advised to make a will, he said:
‘No; because I have only got a sister living; everything belongs to her and everything goes to her.’
The will does not mention this sister. It bequeaths all his property in equal shares to Joseph Raposa, Jr., Mary Raposa, and their father, Joseph Raposa, and nominates Mary Raposa as executrix, with a request that she be exempt from furnishing sureties on her official bond. According to the evidence the testator did not know Mary; he had said he would trust the old man Raposa quicker than he would trust the son, and said Joseph owed him $350, and recently had refused to let him stay at his (Raposa's) house.
The will was executed on April 19, 1921, at the home of one Manuel Da Silva, where the testator was then living. He was ill and weak. At about 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Joseph Raposa called, and said, ‘Joe, you must say where you have your bank books.’ Later in the afternoon Mary Raposa, her brother Joseph, a lawyer, and one Sylva, a deputy sheriff, came to the Da Silva house. The testator was reclining on a chair in the kitchen. Mary Raposa told Da Silva to leave the room, and he did so under protest. Mary, her brother and the lawyer apparently remained in the kitchen with the testator, and later called in Sylva. No evidence was offered as to what occurred there. After these people had left, Da...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Bible Speaks, In re, 88-1254
...by direct testimony, may be exercised by indirect and secret ways, which are disclosed only in their result." Raposa v. Oliveira, 247 Mass. 188, 141 N.E. 870, 870 (1924). Because undue influence is often practiced in "veiled and secret ways," its existence may be inferred from such factors ......
-
McCormack v. Quilty
...settled. It is not necessary to restate them. Neill v. Brackett, 234 Mass. 367, 126 N. E. 93, and cases there collected. Raposa v. Oliveira, 247 Mass. 188, 141 N. E. 870,Allen v. Guarente, 253 Mass. 152, 148 N. E. 461. The motion was decided upon statements by counsel as to what it was expe......
-
Allen v. Guarente
...Neill v. Brackett, 234 Mass. 367, 126 N. E. 93, and cases there cited; Neil v. Brackett, 241 Mass. 534, 135 N. E. 690;Raposa v. Oliveira, 247 Mass. 188, 141 N. E. 870;Connell v. Sokoll, 247 Mass. 203, 142 N. E. 55;Angell v. Lighthipe, 251 Mass. 525, 146 N. E. 692; Craig v. Lamoureux, [1920]......
-
Eddy v. Eddy (In re Eddy's Estate)
...the finding of undue influence made by the probate judge is justified by the evidence of the attendant circumstances. Raposa v. Oliveira, 247 Mass. 188, 190, 141 N. E. 870. 1. There was evidence which warranted the finding that Miss Eddy was in a condition and of a temperament to be suscept......