From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dwyer v. Ferren

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Suffolk
Mar 18, 1926
151 N.E. 927 (Mass. 1926)

Opinion

March 12, 1926.

March 18, 1926.

Present: RUGG, C.J., BRALEY, CROSBY, PIERCE, WAIT, JJ.

Probate Court, Jury issues.

Upon the record, a denial by a judge of probate of a motion, by one contesting the allowance of a will, for jury issues was held to show no error of law.

PETITION, filed in the Probate Court for the county of Suffolk on November 3, 1925, for the proof of the will of Thomas W. Kelley, late of Boston.

The respondents moved that issues be framed for trial by jury. The motions were heard by Dolan, J., upon oral statements by counsel of expected evidence, a stenographer having been appointed under G.L.c. 215, § 18, to take the evidence. The motions were denied. The respondents appealed.

J.F. Meagher, for the respondents.

J.H. Vahey, ( P. Mansfield with him,) for the petitioner.


The statement of expected evidence, which need not be narrated, shows that there was no error of law by the Probate Court in denying motions to frame issues to be tried to a jury respecting the will offered for proof. Fuller v. Sylvia, 240 Mass. 49. Clark v. McNeil, 246 Mass. 250. Old Colony Trust Co. v. Spaulding, 250 Mass. 400.

Order denying motions to frame jury issues affirmed.


Summaries of

Dwyer v. Ferren

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Suffolk
Mar 18, 1926
151 N.E. 927 (Mass. 1926)
Case details for

Dwyer v. Ferren

Case Details

Full title:WALTER J. DWYER vs. PHILIP G. FERREN others

Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Suffolk

Date published: Mar 18, 1926

Citations

151 N.E. 927 (Mass. 1926)
151 N.E. 927

Citing Cases

McIntosh v. McIntosh

This is not a case where the decision of the probate judge ought to be reversed. Williams v. Fritz, 255 Mass.…

McCormack v. Quilty

A careful reading of them convinces us that there was no error in the refusal to frame issues. Old Colony…