Moore v. Tyler

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Moore v. Tyler

182 N.E. 567, 280 Mass. 337, 1932 Mass. LEXIS 1030

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 5, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 182 N.E. 567 (Moore v. Tyler) 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

Moore v. Tyler, 182 N.E. 567, 280 Mass. 337, 1932 Mass. LEXIS 1030 (Mass. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

This is an appeal from a final decree allowing with modifications the first and final account of an administratrix. The decree contained proper recitals as to verification by oath, notice, objections and hearing. The accountant now contests only the disallowance of a charge for her services as administratrix and of a charge for payment to her counsel. No evidence is reported. There is in the record no finding of fact by the judge of probate. Therefore, it must be presumed that he acted upon sufficient evidence. He may have found that the items disallowed had not been paid or were of no value to the estate or for some other reason ought not to reduce the amount available for distribution. No error is shown. Jordan v. Ulmer, 237 Mass. 577. Goss v. Donnell, 263 Mass. 521, 523.

Decree affirmed.

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

By the Court.

This is an appeal from a final decree allowing with modifications the first and final account of an administratrix. The decree contained proper recitals as to verification by oath, notice, objections and hearing. The accountant now contests only the disallowance of a charge for her services as administratrix and of a charge for payment to her counsel. No evidence is reported. There is in the record no finding of fact by the judge of probate. Therefore, it must be presumed that he acted upon sufficient evidence. He may have found that the items disallowed had not been paid or were of no value to the estate or for some other reason ought not to reduce the amount available for distribution. No error is shown. Jordan v. Ulmer, 237 Mass. 577. Goss v. Donnell, 263 Mass. 521, 523.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 N.E. 567, 280 Mass. 337, 1932 Mass. LEXIS 1030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-tyler-mass-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack