Gaunt v. Burroughs

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Gaunt v. Burroughs

83 N.E.2d 172, 323 Mass. 757, 1948 Mass. LEXIS 649

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 28, 1948

StatusPublished

This text of 83 N.E.2d 172 (Gaunt v. Burroughs) 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

Gaunt v. Burroughs, 83 N.E.2d 172, 323 Mass. 757, 1948 Mass. LEXIS 649 (Mass. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree affirmed. This petition to the Probate Court alleges, in substance, that in the assets of the estate of Harry E. Burroughs is the sum of 8800, the property of the petitioner, which is being withheld from the petitioner without right; and that this money “was given in trust to the defendant for the petitioner” by one McCarthy, “trustee at the time.” The prayers are that the court find that said sum is the property of the petitioner, and for further relief. The answer, in substance, denies the allegations of the petition and sets up the defence of res judicata. The Probate Court, “after a full hearing,” dismissed the petition, and the petitioner appeals. The record discloses no express findings of fact by the judge, and the evidence is not reported. Obviously there is nothing in the record to show any error in the decree. Milne v. Walsh, 285 Mass. 151, 153. The petitioner has filed a “brief” with us including certain statements of facts not contained in the record. Appealed cases cannot be retried before us upon assertions in briefs. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 215, § 12. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 214, § 24, as amended by St. 1947, c. 365, § 1. Hale v. Blanchard, 242 Mass. 262, 264-265. Carilli v. Hersey, 299 Mass. 139, 145.

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

Decree affirmed. This petition to the Probate Court alleges, in substance, that in the assets of the estate of Harry E. Burroughs is the sum of 8800, the property of the petitioner, which is being withheld from the petitioner without right; and that this money “was given in trust to the defendant for the petitioner” by one McCarthy, “trustee at the time.” The prayers are that the court find that said sum is the property of the petitioner, and for further relief. The answer, in substance, denies the allegations of the petition and sets up the defence of res judicata. The Probate Court, “after a full hearing,” dismissed the petition, and the petitioner appeals. The record discloses no express findings of fact by the judge, and the evidence is not reported. Obviously there is nothing in the record to show any error in the decree. Milne v. Walsh, 285 Mass. 151, 153. The petitioner has filed a “brief” with us including certain statements of facts not contained in the record. Appealed cases cannot be retried before us upon assertions in briefs. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 215, § 12. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 214, § 24, as amended by St. 1947, c. 365, § 1. Hale v. Blanchard, 242 Mass. 262, 264-265. Carilli v. Hersey, 299 Mass. 139, 145.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 N.E.2d 172, 323 Mass. 757, 1948 Mass. LEXIS 649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaunt-v-burroughs-mass-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack