Love v. Love

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Love v. Love

370 N.E.2d 445, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 897, 1977 Mass. App. LEXIS 885

DecidedDecember 6, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 370 N.E.2d 445 (Love v. Love) 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

Love v. Love, 370 N.E.2d 445, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 897, 1977 Mass. App. LEXIS 885 (Mass. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal by the contestant of an alleged will of Eldon M. Love from the denial of his motion to frame jury issues. Having considered the entire record of the case, which includes the testimony of witnesses (rather than the customary statements of expected proof) and a record of the hospitalization of the deceased which began on the day the alleged will was signed, having given due weight to the deci[898]*898sion of the trial judge (Laws v. Aschenbeck, 326 Mass. 7, 11 [1950]), and having applied the frequently stated principles governing such cases (Neill v. Brackett, 234 Mass. 367, 369-370 [1920]; Morin v. Morin, 328 Mass. 33, 34 [1951]; Stewart v. Forrest, 356 Mass. 728 [1969]; Markus v. Gross, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 823 [1973]), we are of the opinion that there was no error.

John T. Donoghue for Albert E. Love, Jr. Bernard A. Dwork for Edison M. Love & another.

Order affirmed.

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

This is an appeal by the contestant of an alleged will of Eldon M. Love from the denial of his motion to frame jury issues. Having considered the entire record of the case, which includes the testimony of witnesses (rather than the customary statements of expected proof) and a record of the hospitalization of the deceased which began on the day the alleged will was signed, having given due weight to the deci[898]*898sion of the trial judge (Laws v. Aschenbeck, 326 Mass. 7, 11 [1950]), and having applied the frequently stated principles governing such cases (Neill v. Brackett, 234 Mass. 367, 369-370 [1920]; Morin v. Morin, 328 Mass. 33, 34 [1951]; Stewart v. Forrest, 356 Mass. 728 [1969]; Markus v. Gross, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 823 [1973]), we are of the opinion that there was no error.

John T. Donoghue for Albert E. Love, Jr. Bernard A. Dwork for Edison M. Love & another.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

370 N.E.2d 445, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 897, 1977 Mass. App. LEXIS 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/love-v-love-massappct-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack