Lane v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Lane v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation

263 N.E.2d 590, 358 Mass. 803, 1970 Mass. LEXIS 995

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 29, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 263 N.E.2d 590 (Lane v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation) 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

Lane v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation, 263 N.E.2d 590, 358 Mass. 803, 1970 Mass. LEXIS 995 (Mass. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

On December 24, 1966, Hyman N. Levowich died in Florida, where his will and a codicil were admitted to probate. Ancillary administration with the will (and a codicil) annexed was allowed in this Commonwealth by a decree dated June 18, 1968, which was revoked on October 23, 1968. New hearings with respect to ancillary administration then were held, principally concerning the issue whether Levowich’s domicil at his death was in Florida or Massachusetts. On February 21, 1969, a probate judge entered a new decree granting ancillary administration. The Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation and two other persons appealed. The evidence is reported (over 1,300 pages of the transcript of ten days of trial and more than 100 exhibits). The probate judge made no specific findings and no report of material facts. In the circumstances, the entry of the decree imported a finding of every fact essential to sustain it within the scope of the pleadings and supported by the evidence. The judge’s implied findings will not be reversed because, in our opinion, they are not plainly wrong. See Colbert v. Hennessey, 351 Mass. 131,134; Bannish v. Bannish, 357 Mass. 279, 280-281; Newhall, Settlement of Estates (4th ed.) § 301. The oral and documentary evidence was conflicting. There was, nevertheless, strong support for the probate judge’s implied finding that Levowich had his domicil in [804]*804Florida. That issue was “mainly a question of fact to be determined from all the evidence.” See Commonwealth v. Davis, 284 Mass. 41, 49-52. See also Slater v. Munroe, 313 Mass. 538, 540-546.

William A. Shue, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation. Charles W. Lavers for George I. Ellis. Thomas B. Arnold (Sidney Heimberg with him) for Richard S. Bowers.

Decree affirmed.

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

On December 24, 1966, Hyman N. Levowich died in Florida, where his will and a codicil were admitted to probate. Ancillary administration with the will (and a codicil) annexed was allowed in this Commonwealth by a decree dated June 18, 1968, which was revoked on October 23, 1968. New hearings with respect to ancillary administration then were held, principally concerning the issue whether Levowich’s domicil at his death was in Florida or Massachusetts. On February 21, 1969, a probate judge entered a new decree granting ancillary administration. The Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation and two other persons appealed. The evidence is reported (over 1,300 pages of the transcript of ten days of trial and more than 100 exhibits). The probate judge made no specific findings and no report of material facts. In the circumstances, the entry of the decree imported a finding of every fact essential to sustain it within the scope of the pleadings and supported by the evidence. The judge’s implied findings will not be reversed because, in our opinion, they are not plainly wrong. See Colbert v. Hennessey, 351 Mass. 131,134; Bannish v. Bannish, 357 Mass. 279, 280-281; Newhall, Settlement of Estates (4th ed.) § 301. The oral and documentary evidence was conflicting. There was, nevertheless, strong support for the probate judge’s implied finding that Levowich had his domicil in [804]*804Florida. That issue was “mainly a question of fact to be determined from all the evidence.” See Commonwealth v. Davis, 284 Mass. 41, 49-52. See also Slater v. Munroe, 313 Mass. 538, 540-546.

William A. Shue, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation. Charles W. Lavers for George I. Ellis. Thomas B. Arnold (Sidney Heimberg with him) for Richard S. Bowers.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 N.E.2d 590, 358 Mass. 803, 1970 Mass. LEXIS 995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lane-v-commissioner-of-corporations-taxation-mass-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack