Cornell v. Noonan

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Cornell v. Noonan

189 N.E. 807, 286 Mass. 137, 1934 Mass. LEXIS 993

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 28, 1934

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 189 N.E. 807 (Cornell v. Noonan) 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

Cornell v. Noonan, 189 N.E. 807, 286 Mass. 137, 1934 Mass. LEXIS 993 (Mass. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Wait, J.

No new question of law or of fact is involved herein. The defendant administrator -with the will annexed of Hugh Howard MacDonald appeals from a decree establishing a valid gift inter vivos of certain personal property claimed as her own by the plaintiff, and ordering the delivery of the property to the plaintiff. The evidence is not reported; but the trial judge filed findings of fact. It is the defendant’s contention that the findings are inconsistent with the conclusion that the deceased made the gift in question. He does not dispute that unless this inconsistency appears and they are clearly wrong the findings will not be reversed on appeal. Mongeau v. McKay, 281 Mass. 101. Armstrong v. Orler, 220 Mass. 112.

We do not see profit in a statement of the findings and [139]*139a discussion of the arguments addressed to us after unsuccessful reliance upon them before the trial judge. A gift inter vivos of one half of his property to one whom he has for years regarded as a mother, leaving the donor possessed of a very substantial sum for future use or for disposition elsewhere, does not seem to us so incredible a proceeding that we must reverse the finding made below. The case is well within our decisions in Mulloy v. Charlestown Five Cents Savings Bank, 285 Mass. 101, 105, Robinson v. Pero, 272 Mass. 482, Pierce v. Boston Five Cents Savings Bank, 129 Mass. 425. See Millett v. Temple, 280 Mass. 543.

Decree affirmed with costs.

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

Wait, J.

No new question of law or of fact is involved herein. The defendant administrator -with the will annexed of Hugh Howard MacDonald appeals from a decree establishing a valid gift inter vivos of certain personal property claimed as her own by the plaintiff, and ordering the delivery of the property to the plaintiff. The evidence is not reported; but the trial judge filed findings of fact. It is the defendant’s contention that the findings are inconsistent with the conclusion that the deceased made the gift in question. He does not dispute that unless this inconsistency appears and they are clearly wrong the findings will not be reversed on appeal. Mongeau v. McKay, 281 Mass. 101. Armstrong v. Orler, 220 Mass. 112.

We do not see profit in a statement of the findings and [139]*139a discussion of the arguments addressed to us after unsuccessful reliance upon them before the trial judge. A gift inter vivos of one half of his property to one whom he has for years regarded as a mother, leaving the donor possessed of a very substantial sum for future use or for disposition elsewhere, does not seem to us so incredible a proceeding that we must reverse the finding made below. The case is well within our decisions in Mulloy v. Charlestown Five Cents Savings Bank, 285 Mass. 101, 105, Robinson v. Pero, 272 Mass. 482, Pierce v. Boston Five Cents Savings Bank, 129 Mass. 425. See Millett v. Temple, 280 Mass. 543.

Decree affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 N.E. 807, 286 Mass. 137, 1934 Mass. LEXIS 993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cornell-v-noonan-mass-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack