Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

Widget HTML #1

[DOWNLOAD] "Hannon Et Al. v. Gorman Et Al." by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

Hannon Et Al. v. Gorman Et Al.

📘 Read Now     📥 Download


eBook details

  • Title: Hannon Et Al. v. Gorman Et Al.
  • Author : Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
  • Release Date : January 26, 1937
  • Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
  • Pages : * pages
  • Size : 63 KB

Description

RUGG, Chief Justice. This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to frame issues for trial by jury concerning the execution of an instrument offered for probate as the last will of Mary E. Gorman, deceased, late of Framingham. The issues set forth in the motion were (1) whether the instrument was executed according to law, (2) whether the decedent was of sound mind at the time of the execution of the alleged will, and (3) whether the execution of the alleged will was procured by the fraud or undue influence of James J. Hannon. The motion was heard upon oral statements by counsel for the respective parties as to the evidence expected to be produced at the trial. The principles of law governing the framing of issues in a case like the present have been frequently stated, are thoroughly established, and need not be repeated at length. Fuller v. Sylvia, 240 Mass. 49, 133 N.E. 384; Cook v. Mosher, 243 Mass. 149, 137 N.E. 299; Clark v. McNeil, 246 Mass. 250, 140 N.E. 922. Briefly stated, the question is whether there appears to be a genuine question of fact supported by evidence of such substantial nature as to afford ground for reasonable expectation of a result favorable to the party requesting the framing of issues. Smith v. Patterson, 286 Mass. 356, 358, 190 N.E. 536; Terry v. King, 286 Mass. 598, 190 N.E. 820; Briggs v. Weston (Mass.) 2 N.E.2d 466; Baker v. Owens (Mass.) 199 N.E. 751. The decision of the probate Judge adverse to the motion is entitled to weight even though the record discloses everything which was before him. An element of discretion is vested in him which will be given weight on appeal. Bemis v. Andrews, 280 Mass. 409, 411, 182 N.E. 816; Granston v. Hallock, 281 Mass. 182, 183 N.E. 351.


Free PDF Books "Hannon Et Al. v. Gorman Et Al." Online ePub Kindle