Wojtkonski v. Wojtkonski

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Wojtkonski v. Wojtkonski

118 N.E.2d 102, 331 Mass. 760

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 9, 1954

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 118 N.E.2d 102 (Wojtkonski v. Wojtkonski) 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

Wojtkonski v. Wojtkonski, 118 N.E.2d 102, 331 Mass. 760 (Mass. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree affirmed. In the first of these cases, which were tried together, one Stella Wojtkonski petitions the Probate Court for partition of a parcel of land in New Bedford, in which, by conveyance from her husband Joseph Wojtkonski, she owns a one-half interest, and in the second Joseph, by a suit in equity, seeks to have said conveyance annulled because of fraud and duress. In a report of material facts filed in each case the judge found that the wife obtained the conveyance by threats and false representations. In the equity suit he entered a decree ordering the wife to reconvey, and having entered it decreed that her petition be dismissed. There was no error. The conveyance to her was voidable, Powell v. Powell, 260 Mass. 505, Cram v. Cram, 262 Mass. 509, Jurewicz v. Jurewicz, 317 Mass. 512, 514; and after the order to reconvey, she had no standing in equity to maintain her petition. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 241, § 25. See Moseley v. Moseley, 240 Mass. 22, 25.

The cases were submitted on briefs.

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

Decree affirmed. In the first of these cases, which were tried together, one Stella Wojtkonski petitions the Probate Court for partition of a parcel of land in New Bedford, in which, by conveyance from her husband Joseph Wojtkonski, she owns a one-half interest, and in the second Joseph, by a suit in equity, seeks to have said conveyance annulled because of fraud and duress. In a report of material facts filed in each case the judge found that the wife obtained the conveyance by threats and false representations. In the equity suit he entered a decree ordering the wife to reconvey, and having entered it decreed that her petition be dismissed. There was no error. The conveyance to her was voidable, Powell v. Powell, 260 Mass. 505, Cram v. Cram, 262 Mass. 509, Jurewicz v. Jurewicz, 317 Mass. 512, 514; and after the order to reconvey, she had no standing in equity to maintain her petition. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 241, § 25. See Moseley v. Moseley, 240 Mass. 22, 25.

The cases were submitted on briefs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 N.E.2d 102, 331 Mass. 760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wojtkonski-v-wojtkonski-mass-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack