Sullivan v. President & Fellows of Harvard College

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Sullivan v. President & Fellows of Harvard College

206 N.E.2d 86, 348 Mass. 800

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 2, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 206 N.E.2d 86 (Sullivan v. President & Fellows of Harvard College) 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. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 206 N.E.2d 86, 348 Mass. 800 (Mass. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree affirmed. This is an appeal from a decree of the Probate Court allowing an instrument dated October 19, 1961, as the will of Mary A. Shea, late of Cambridge. After a full hearing the trial judge filed a report of the material facts in compliance with the contestant’s request. The evidence is reported. The contestant argues (1) that the material findings made by the judge were clearly erroneous; (2) that the proponent failed to sustain the burden of proof that the testatrix possessed testamentary capacity on October 19, 1961; (3) that the judge utilized an erroneous standard of burden of proof; and (4) that the October 19, 1961, instrument was the result of undue influence. We think no useful purpose would be served by a recitation of the pertinent portions of the rather voluminous testimony or by summarizing the judge’s report of material facts. From a careful review of the entire record we are satisfied that there was no error. The controlling legal principles have been stated in a number of decisions of this court and need not here be repeated. Neill v. Brackett, 234 Mass. 367. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. A. C. Martinelli-Rogers Plastic Corp. 344 Mass. 498, 501-502. Petition for Bevocation of a Decree for Adoption of a Minor, 345 Mass. 663, 669. O’Brien v. Wellesley College, 346 Mass. 162.

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

Decree affirmed. This is an appeal from a decree of the Probate Court allowing an instrument dated October 19, 1961, as the will of Mary A. Shea, late of Cambridge. After a full hearing the trial judge filed a report of the material facts in compliance with the contestant’s request. The evidence is reported. The contestant argues (1) that the material findings made by the judge were clearly erroneous; (2) that the proponent failed to sustain the burden of proof that the testatrix possessed testamentary capacity on October 19, 1961; (3) that the judge utilized an erroneous standard of burden of proof; and (4) that the October 19, 1961, instrument was the result of undue influence. We think no useful purpose would be served by a recitation of the pertinent portions of the rather voluminous testimony or by summarizing the judge’s report of material facts. From a careful review of the entire record we are satisfied that there was no error. The controlling legal principles have been stated in a number of decisions of this court and need not here be repeated. Neill v. Brackett, 234 Mass. 367. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. A. C. Martinelli-Rogers Plastic Corp. 344 Mass. 498, 501-502. Petition for Bevocation of a Decree for Adoption of a Minor, 345 Mass. 663, 669. O’Brien v. Wellesley College, 346 Mass. 162.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 N.E.2d 86, 348 Mass. 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-president-fellows-of-harvard-college-mass-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack