Ecklund v. Ecklund

193 N.E. 43, 288 Mass. 517, 1934 Mass. LEXIS 1299
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedDecember 6, 1934
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 193 N.E. 43 (Ecklund v. Ecklund) 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
Ecklund v. Ecklund, 193 N.E. 43, 288 Mass. 517, 1934 Mass. LEXIS 1299 (Mass. 1934).

Opinion

Rugg, C.J.

This petition in equity is brought by the administratrix of the estate of Peter A. Ecklund praying that certain sums of money, deposited by him during his life with his brother and standing in the names of that brother and his wife in savings banks, be declared to be property of the estate and be ordered paid to the petitioner. That brother, his wife, and the savings banks are joined as respondents. The probate judge after making [518]*518preliminary findings concluded with the decisive finding that the money was placed by the intestate in the hands of his brother not as a gift but to hold for his benefit as owner. A decree was entered in accordance with the findings directing the transfer of the deposits in the several savings banks to the petitioner. The brother of the intestate and his wife have appealed. The entire evidence is reported.

The familiar rule is that an appeal in those circumstances brings before this court questions of fact as well as of law; and although it is the duty of this court to examine the evidence and decide the case upon its judgment, a decision based upon oral testimony will not be reversed unless plainly wrong.

This record has been carefully examined. No point of law is raised on it. The question determined was purely one of fact, depending upon the credibility of witnesses and the weighing of evidence. The decision was not plainly wrong but appears to have been right. Cases of this kind depend upon their special circumstances, can be of no value as precedents and the evidence need not be stated or discussed. Reed v. Reed, 114 Mass. 372. Lincoln v. Eaton, 132 Mass. 63, 68. Dickinson v. Todd, 172 Mass. 183. Norcross v. Mahan, 283 Mass. 403.

Decree affirmed.

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

Related

Leventhal v. Leventhal
221 N.E.2d 880 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1966)
Hosken, Inc. v. Hingham Management Corp.
105 N.E.2d 232 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1952)
Westgate v. Doberk
62 N.E.2d 105 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1945)
Coe v. Coe
46 N.E.2d 1017 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
Argus v. Kokkorou
45 N.E.2d 399 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1942)
Taylor v. Dobbins
38 N.E.2d 217 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1941)
Grocer v. Montifore Cemetery Ass'n
29 N.E.2d 313 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Culhane v. Foley
26 N.E.2d 331 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Kevorkian v. Moors
12 N.E.2d 111 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
Denault v. Cadorette
9 N.E.2d 383 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
Hannon v. Gorman
6 N.E.2d 433 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
Murphy v. Donovan
3 N.E.2d 734 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Harding v. Studley
200 N.E. 916 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Durfee v. Durfee
200 N.E. 395 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
O'Reilly v. O'Reilly
199 N.E. 741 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Graustein v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc.
200 N.E. 14 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Gallagher v. Cullinan
198 N.E. 155 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Ashley v. Collins
197 N.E. 434 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
MacDonald v. MacDonald
291 Mass. 299 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Trade Mutual Liability Insurance v. Peters
195 N.E. 900 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
193 N.E. 43, 288 Mass. 517, 1934 Mass. LEXIS 1299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ecklund-v-ecklund-mass-1934.