Ullian v. Ullian

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Ullian v. Ullian

324 N.E.2d 906, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 729, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 754

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedApril 2, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 324 N.E.2d 906 (Ullian v. Ullian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ullian v. Ullian, 324 N.E.2d 906, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 729, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 754 (Mass. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff’s appeal from an interlocutory decree sustaining the defendant’s plea in bar brings nothing before this court where, as here, the appeal taken by the plaintiff from the final decree dismissing her bill was not seasonable. G. L. c. 214, § 19, as in effect prior to St. 1973, c. 1114, § 62. See Radio Corp. of America v. Raytheon Mfg. Co. 300 Mass. 113, 120 (1938); Fusaro v. Murray, 300 Mass. 229, 231 (1938). It may be appropriate to add that were we to have dealt with the case on its merits, our conclusions would not have differed from those of the trial judge in sustaining the plea. As the plaintiff has conceded, if the allegations [730]*730of her bill sound in contract, the judge was right in sustaining the plea. We would concur in the further conclusion, which we assume was reached by the judge, that certain allegations of the bill essential to the plaintiff’s claim of a constructive trust in her favor are vague, con-clusory and insufficient to support her claim. Compare Woodard v. Woodard, 216 Mass. 1 (1913). See Gabriel v. Borowy, 324 Mass. 231, 237-238 (1949); Ranicar v. Goodwin, 326 Mass. 710, 713 (1951); Bogert, Trusts & Trustees, § 473, p. 30 (2d ed. 1960); Scott, Trusts, § 468, pp. 3439-3440 (3d ed. 1967).

Stephen R. Katz for the plaintiff. George M. Ford for the defendant.

Appeals dismissed.

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

The plaintiff’s appeal from an interlocutory decree sustaining the defendant’s plea in bar brings nothing before this court where, as here, the appeal taken by the plaintiff from the final decree dismissing her bill was not seasonable. G. L. c. 214, § 19, as in effect prior to St. 1973, c. 1114, § 62. See Radio Corp. of America v. Raytheon Mfg. Co. 300 Mass. 113, 120 (1938); Fusaro v. Murray, 300 Mass. 229, 231 (1938). It may be appropriate to add that were we to have dealt with the case on its merits, our conclusions would not have differed from those of the trial judge in sustaining the plea. As the plaintiff has conceded, if the allegations [730]*730of her bill sound in contract, the judge was right in sustaining the plea. We would concur in the further conclusion, which we assume was reached by the judge, that certain allegations of the bill essential to the plaintiff’s claim of a constructive trust in her favor are vague, con-clusory and insufficient to support her claim. Compare Woodard v. Woodard, 216 Mass. 1 (1913). See Gabriel v. Borowy, 324 Mass. 231, 237-238 (1949); Ranicar v. Goodwin, 326 Mass. 710, 713 (1951); Bogert, Trusts & Trustees, § 473, p. 30 (2d ed. 1960); Scott, Trusts, § 468, pp. 3439-3440 (3d ed. 1967).

Stephen R. Katz for the plaintiff. George M. Ford for the defendant.

Appeals dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 N.E.2d 906, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 729, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ullian-v-ullian-massappct-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack