Sherman v. Warren

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: HAMMOND, J.
• Citation: Sherman v. Warren, 211 Mass. 288, 97 N.E. 892 (Mass. 1912)
• Decision Date: 29 February 1912
• Parties: SHERMAN v. WARREN et al.

211 Mass. 288

97 N.E. 892

SHERMAN v. WARREN et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

February 29, 1912

COUNSEL

Geo. L. Mayberry, for Alberta F. Warren and others.

Edwd. C. Clark, for Carrie E. Dodge.

John L Harvey, for Leland Home for Aged Women.

John J Flynn, for Geo. A. Clark.

Robt. M. Stark, for Elizabeth Pollard.

C. F French, for respondent.

OPINION

HAMMOND J.

The only question is whether the Waltham Hospital, hereinafter called the hospital, 'is a necessary party to the agreement for compromise.' It is not an heir at law of the deceased. It is named as a legatee in the will, but in the codicil executed several months after the will there is a provision entirely revoking the legacy. If therefore both will and codicil are allowed, or if both are disallowed, the hospital gets nothing. It is for its interest that the will should be allowed and the codicil disallowed. It has not appeared to oppose the allowance of the will and codicil except as it has appeared and answered and been heard in this proceeding.

It is manifestly interested in the controversy and is a party entitled to appeal from any decree against its interest. And that is so even if it does not appear until after the decree of the probate court, provided the appeal be seasonably taken.

A controversy over the allowance of a will may be determined in court in two ways. The first is by the decision of the court upon a hearing and proof, allowing or disallowing the will. If allowed, it stands as written. If disallowed, it is null as though never written. The second way is by agreement of compromise signed by all parties whose interests, in the opinion of the court, will be affected by the proposed compromise, and approved by the court. When the controversy is settled in this way, the rights of the parties are determined, not by the will as written, but as changed by the terms of the compromise. In these two ways, and in these only, can the rights of the parties be adjusted by the probate court. The jurisdiction of the court in the first way is entirely independent of any agreement of the parties. In the second way it is entirely dependent upon the agreement of the parties. The second is an anomalous proceeding. 'The court has no jurisdiction unless the requirements of the statute are complied with.' Knowlton, J., in Elder v. Adams, 180 Mass. 303, 306, 62 N.E. 373.

As stated before, the interest of the...