Bateman v. Peaslee

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Bateman v. Peaslee

61 N.E.2d 852, 318 Mass. 779, 1945 Mass. LEXIS 585

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 9, 1945

StatusPublished

This text of 61 N.E.2d 852 (Bateman v. Peaslee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bateman v. Peaslee, 61 N.E.2d 852, 318 Mass. 779, 1945 Mass. LEXIS 585 (Mass. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed. This is an appeal from an order of the Probate Court in the matter of the alleged will of Edna A. Fletcher, late of Stoneham — made upon the motion of the sole heir at law and next of kin of the deceased — framing issues for submission to a jury as to the testamentary capacity of the deceased and as to fraud or undue influence of one Charles H. Bateman, or some person or persons acting in his behalf, or any of them. Upon consideration of the statements of expected evidence — which need not be recited — in the light of the established principles of law governing the framing of such issues and review on appeal after action of the Probate Court on motions for the framing of such issues — which have been frequently stated and need not be restated — including recognition of the element of discretion vested in the probate judge, we conclude that there was no error in the fráming of the issues. See Cook v. Mosher, 243 Mass. 149, 152-153; Hannon v. Gorman, 296 Mass. 437.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order affirmed. This is an appeal from an order of the Probate Court in the matter of the alleged will of Edna A. Fletcher, late of Stoneham — made upon the motion of the sole heir at law and next of kin of the deceased — framing issues for submission to a jury as to the testamentary capacity of the deceased and as to fraud or undue influence of one Charles H. Bateman, or some person or persons acting in his behalf, or any of them. Upon consideration of the statements of expected evidence — which need not be recited — in the light of the established principles of law governing the framing of such issues and review on appeal after action of the Probate Court on motions for the framing of such issues — which have been frequently stated and need not be restated — including recognition of the element of discretion vested in the probate judge, we conclude that there was no error in the fráming of the issues. See Cook v. Mosher, 243 Mass. 149, 152-153; Hannon v. Gorman, 296 Mass. 437.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 N.E.2d 852, 318 Mass. 779, 1945 Mass. LEXIS 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bateman-v-peaslee-mass-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack