Stein v. Dornig
| Decision Date | 09 April 1969 |
| Citation | 247 N.E.2d 397,355 Mass. 797 |
| Parties | S. Harold STEIN et al. v. Ruth Frances DORNIG et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Daniel S. Fram, Boston, for petitioners.
Louis Feinstein, Boston, for respondents.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, WHITTEMORE, KIRK, and REARDON, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The petitioners seek to establish their title to certain bonds and cash formerly on deposit in two Florida banks and appeal from the denial and dismissal of their petition by a probate judge. The evidence is reported but the judge made no findings of fact. We thus have the duty to examine the evidence and decide the case, reaching our own conclusions. The decree dismissing the petition 'imports a finding of every fact essential to support * * * (the judge's) conclusion.' Berry v. Kyes, 304 Mass. 56, 57, 22 N.E.2d 622, 624; Durfee v. Durfee, 293 Mass. 472, 478, 200 N.E. 395. The findings of the judge necessarily implied from the entry of the decree will not be reversed unless they are plainly wrong. Levanosky v. Lavanosky, 311 Mass. 638, 639, 42 N.E.2d 561. The petition alleges that the bonds and cash were given to the petitioners by an elderly woman now deceased in exchange for their undertaking her general care and maintenance. The judge heard conflicting evidence on this claim. He was in a much better position than we to assess the validity of all the evidence he heard. He apparently accorded no weight to that which came from the petitioners and their witnesses and believed contrary evidence presented by the respondents. Our review of the evidence does not indicate that he was plainly wrong.
Decree affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petition of Dept. of Public Welfare
...findings will not be reversed unless plainly wrong. See Gannon v. MacDonald, 361 Mass. 851, 279 N.E.2d 668 (1972); Stein v. Dornig, 355 Mass. 797, 247 N.E.2d 397 (1969). Based on our review of the transcript and exhibits which the parties agreed to include in an appendix, we cannot say that......
- Caccavaro v. American Motorists Ins. Co.