Bray v. Story

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Bray v. Story

65 N.E.2d 920, 319 Mass. 723, 1946 Mass. LEXIS 600

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 29, 1946

StatusPublished

This text of 65 N.E.2d 920 (Bray v. Story) 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

Bray v. Story, 65 N.E.2d 920, 319 Mass. 723, 1946 Mass. LEXIS 600 (Mass. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree affirmed. This is an appeal from a decree entered in the Probate Court allowing a certain instrument as the last will and testament of Lillian M. Smith. The decree contains findings that the instrument is the last will and testament of the deceased, that it was legally executed, and that at the time of making the same the deceased was of full age and of sound mind. The appellants’ sole contention is that the finding of the judge that the deceased was of sound mind at the time of the execution of the instrument is plainly wrong. The judge made no report of the material facts found by him, but the evidence is reported. We have examined the evidence in accordance with our duty under the familiar rule. Hiller v. Hiller, 305 Mass. 163, 164. Its narration would add nothing to our jurisprudence. We are of opinion that the findings of the judge expressed and implied in the decree entered by him cannot be said properly to be plainly wrong. There is evidence that justifies the entry of the decree.

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

Decree affirmed. This is an appeal from a decree entered in the Probate Court allowing a certain instrument as the last will and testament of Lillian M. Smith. The decree contains findings that the instrument is the last will and testament of the deceased, that it was legally executed, and that at the time of making the same the deceased was of full age and of sound mind. The appellants’ sole contention is that the finding of the judge that the deceased was of sound mind at the time of the execution of the instrument is plainly wrong. The judge made no report of the material facts found by him, but the evidence is reported. We have examined the evidence in accordance with our duty under the familiar rule. Hiller v. Hiller, 305 Mass. 163, 164. Its narration would add nothing to our jurisprudence. We are of opinion that the findings of the judge expressed and implied in the decree entered by him cannot be said properly to be plainly wrong. There is evidence that justifies the entry of the decree.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 N.E.2d 920, 319 Mass. 723, 1946 Mass. LEXIS 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bray-v-story-mass-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack