Sullivan v. Moran

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Sullivan v. Moran

162 N.E.2d 801, 340 Mass. 782

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 9, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 162 N.E.2d 801 (Sullivan v. Moran) 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

Sullivan v. Moran, 162 N.E.2d 801, 340 Mass. 782 (Mass. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Order allowing motion to dismiss affirmed. This is a petition filed December 8, 1953, by three children and three grandchildren of Mary Sullivan to revoke a decree of October 2, 1933, allowing the first and final account of the administratrix of her estate to which all next of kin and the guardian of grandchildren assented. It is alleged that the assent of the petitioners was given under a “misapprehension.” In a report of material facts the judge stated the history of the case and noted that no allegation was made of fraud, undue influence, or manifest error. A. motion to dismiss the petition, which we treat as a plea, was allowed “especially on the grounds of obvious loches.” The petitioners appealed. There was no error. See Reynolds v. Remick, 333 Mass. 1, 9-10; Lindsey v. Fabens, 189 Mass. 329, 331; Thompson v. De Visser, 219 Mass. 40, 43.

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

Order allowing motion to dismiss affirmed. This is a petition filed December 8, 1953, by three children and three grandchildren of Mary Sullivan to revoke a decree of October 2, 1933, allowing the first and final account of the administratrix of her estate to which all next of kin and the guardian of grandchildren assented. It is alleged that the assent of the petitioners was given under a “misapprehension.” In a report of material facts the judge stated the history of the case and noted that no allegation was made of fraud, undue influence, or manifest error. A. motion to dismiss the petition, which we treat as a plea, was allowed “especially on the grounds of obvious loches.” The petitioners appealed. There was no error. See Reynolds v. Remick, 333 Mass. 1, 9-10; Lindsey v. Fabens, 189 Mass. 329, 331; Thompson v. De Visser, 219 Mass. 40, 43.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 N.E.2d 801, 340 Mass. 782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-moran-mass-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack