Stewart v. Forrest
This text of 254 N.E.2d 60 (Stewart v. Forrest) 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.
Opinion
The contestant appeals from an order of the probate judge denying a motion to frame for trial by jury the issue whether the execution of the alleged will was [729]*729procured by the fraud or undue influence of the proponent. The judge received statements of counsel in lieu of evidence. We decide the case ourselves giving due weight to the decision of the j udge. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Blaisdell, 333 Mass. 51, 56. Applying frequently stated principles, we are of opinion as was the judge that the expected evidence did not raise a genuine and doubtful question of fact on the issue of fraud or undue influence. Goddard v. Dupree, 322 Mass. 247, 250. Spilios v. Bouras, 337 Mass. 176, 177. Tarricone v. Cummings, 340 Mass. 758.
Order denying motion for jury issue affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
254 N.E.2d 60, 356 Mass. 728, 1969 Mass. LEXIS 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-forrest-mass-1969.