Collins v. Hillis

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Collins v. Hillis

386 N.E.2d 1287, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 883

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedMarch 16, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 386 N.E.2d 1287 (Collins v. Hillis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Collins v. Hillis, 386 N.E.2d 1287, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 883 (Mass. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

1. As the facts asserted in the sixth and seventh paragraphs of the affidavit of the plaintiff Collins would, if found at trial, support a judgment for money damages in favor of both plaintiffs against the defendant in her capacity as executrix (see Cromwell v. Norton, 193 Mass. 291, 292-293 [1906]; Kemp v. Kemp, 248 Mass. 354, 357-358 [1924], and cases cited; Young v. Young, 251Mass. 218, 221-222 [1925]; Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 362 Mass. 1, 10-11 [1972]), it was error to dismiss the action under Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(b), 365 Mass. 824 (1974), insofar as relief is sought against the defendant as executrix. 2. It has not been argued that it was error to dismiss the action insofar as relief was sought against the defendant in her individual capacity. See Mass.R.A.P. 16 (a) (4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). The present judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Probate Court, where (a) a final judgment is to be entered under the provisions of the first sentence of Mass.R.Civ.P. 54(b), 365 Mass. 821 (1974), which dismisses the action as to the defendant in her capacity as an individual and (b) the case is to stand for further proceedings, including the disposition of the counterclaims (if they are not waived); the plaintiffs are to have costs of appeal from the estate.

So ordered.

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

1. As the facts asserted in the sixth and seventh paragraphs of the affidavit of the plaintiff Collins would, if found at trial, support a judgment for money damages in favor of both plaintiffs against the defendant in her capacity as executrix (see Cromwell v. Norton, 193 Mass. 291, 292-293 [1906]; Kemp v. Kemp, 248 Mass. 354, 357-358 [1924], and cases cited; Young v. Young, 251Mass. 218, 221-222 [1925]; Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 362 Mass. 1, 10-11 [1972]), it was error to dismiss the action under Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(b), 365 Mass. 824 (1974), insofar as relief is sought against the defendant as executrix. 2. It has not been argued that it was error to dismiss the action insofar as relief was sought against the defendant in her individual capacity. See Mass.R.A.P. 16 (a) (4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). The present judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Probate Court, where (a) a final judgment is to be entered under the provisions of the first sentence of Mass.R.Civ.P. 54(b), 365 Mass. 821 (1974), which dismisses the action as to the defendant in her capacity as an individual and (b) the case is to stand for further proceedings, including the disposition of the counterclaims (if they are not waived); the plaintiffs are to have costs of appeal from the estate.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 N.E.2d 1287, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-hillis-massappct-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack