Nichols v. Sullivan

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Nichols v. Sullivan

164 N.E.2d 145, 340 Mass. 783, 1959 Mass. LEXIS 938

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 31, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 164 N.E.2d 145 (Nichols v. Sullivan) 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

Nichols v. Sullivan, 164 N.E.2d 145, 340 Mass. 783, 1959 Mass. LEXIS 938 (Mass. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying jury issues affirmed. The expected testimony of psychiatrists who had not seen the decedent was at best subject to the infirmity of being based on only a portion of the evidence. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Blaisdell, 333 Mass. 51, 57. The judge could rightly conclude that the proposed testimony for the contestants, including that of actions tending to show weakening of body and mind, was of substantially [784]*784less weight than the statements of expected testimony of attending physicians and the decedent’s attorneys which would support a finding of testamentary capacity at the times when the will and two codicils were executed. See O’Brien v. Collins, 315 Mass. 429, 436. We discern no error in the application of the well known principles. See Clark v. McNeil, 246 Mass. 250, 254-255; Taylor v. Callahan, 265 Mass. 582.

Richard J. Cotter, Jr., for the contestants. Frank B. Wallis, (Henry B. Shepard, Jr., with him,) for the proponents.

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

Order denying jury issues affirmed. The expected testimony of psychiatrists who had not seen the decedent was at best subject to the infirmity of being based on only a portion of the evidence. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Blaisdell, 333 Mass. 51, 57. The judge could rightly conclude that the proposed testimony for the contestants, including that of actions tending to show weakening of body and mind, was of substantially [784]*784less weight than the statements of expected testimony of attending physicians and the decedent’s attorneys which would support a finding of testamentary capacity at the times when the will and two codicils were executed. See O’Brien v. Collins, 315 Mass. 429, 436. We discern no error in the application of the well known principles. See Clark v. McNeil, 246 Mass. 250, 254-255; Taylor v. Callahan, 265 Mass. 582.

Richard J. Cotter, Jr., for the contestants. Frank B. Wallis, (Henry B. Shepard, Jr., with him,) for the proponents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 N.E.2d 145, 340 Mass. 783, 1959 Mass. LEXIS 938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nichols-v-sullivan-mass-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack