Mowat v. Deluca

116 N.E.2d 322, 330 Mass. 711, 1953 Mass. LEXIS 603
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedDecember 10, 1953
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 116 N.E.2d 322 (Mowat v. Deluca) 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
Mowat v. Deluca, 116 N.E.2d 322, 330 Mass. 711, 1953 Mass. LEXIS 603 (Mass. 1953).

Opinion

Order denying jury issues affirmed. Order denying continuance affirmed. One of these appeals is from an order of a judge of the Probate Court denying jury issues in connection with the probate of the will of Antonio Deluca. The only issue seriously urged was undue influence on the part of Raymond G. Mowat and his wife, Elsie P. Mowat, who were the only beneficiaries under said will. This issue was submitted to the judge upon oral statements of counsel for the proponent and counsel for the contestant, together with written statements of certain persons reciting evidence which counsel for the contestant expected them to give in the event of a jury trial. All these statements appear in the record. Viewing the whole record and giving the decision of the judge the weight to which it is entitled, we think that the expected evidence did not require the framing of an issue upon undue influence. Fuller v. Sylvia, 240 Mass. 49. Hannon v. Gorman, 296 Mass. 437. See Laws v. Aschenbeck, 326 Mass. 7. The other appeal was from an order of the judge [712]*712denying a motion for a continuance of the hearing on the motion to frame jury issues until after a hearing upon a petition for discovery had been had. Little citation of authority is necessary to demonstrate that a motion for a continuance rests entirely within the discretion of the judge unless abuse of discretion is shown. No abuse of discretion is shown here. Noble v. Mead-Morrison Manuf. Co. 237 Mass. 5, 16.

Raphael A. A. Compáreme, (Thomas V. Sullivan with him,) for the contestant. No argument nor brief for the proponent.

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

Related

In re Brauer
890 N.E.2d 847 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2008)
Jensen v. Daniels
57 Mass. App. Ct. 811 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2003)
Care & Protection of Quinn
763 N.E.2d 573 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2002)
Mantha v. Riverside Leasing & Sales
2001 Mass. App. Div. 79 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 2001)
Kalus v. Thompson Club Unit Owners' Trust
1993 Mass. App. Div. 6 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1993)
Gynan v. Jeep Corp.
434 N.E.2d 688 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1982)
Commonwealth v. Colonial Motor Sales, Inc.
420 N.E.2d 20 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1981)
Leonard v. Strong
314 N.E.2d 451 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1974)
Ackroyd's Case
163 N.E.2d 271 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 N.E.2d 322, 330 Mass. 711, 1953 Mass. LEXIS 603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mowat-v-deluca-mass-1953.