Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

115 Mass. 334

Mason v. Lewis

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1874-06-18

The reasons of appeal related to matters of fact only, not appearing on the record. The appeal was set down for hearing before Devens, J., on May 23,1874, when the appellants, not appearing, were defaulted, and the decree of the probate court affirmed. The appellants on May 26 appealed to the full court, and immediately entered their appeal here.

Relies on Commonwealth v. Sullivan · Smith v. Townsend

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1874-06-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 1917

7 state decisions

3018741880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gray, C. J.

¶1By the Gen. Sts. c. 117, § 14, probate appeals are to have the same rights as to hearing and determination as cases in equity. The Gen. Sts. c. 113, § 8, allow an appeal in equity to be claimed from the final decree of a single justice to the full court at any time within thirty days. But no statute provides that, when once claimed and entered, it shall not be heard by the full court for thirty days. The practice has been, in accordance with the St. of 1864, c. 111, as soon as an appeal is claimed of record, to enter it forthwith in the full court, and to treat it as before the court in ten days after it is taken. It is admitted that ten days have elapsed in this case. The full court therefore has cognizance of the appeal.

¶2The decree of the single justice was rendered upon the default of the appellants. Ho error of law appears upon the record. Ho evidence was taken before the single justice, and no report requested or made of the hearing before him. There is nothing before us therefore by which his decree can be revised in matter of fact. Wright v. Wright, 13 Allen, 207. Ross v. Harper, 99 Mass 175. Smith v. Townsend, 109 Mass. 500.

¶3*336The application foi the appointment of a commissioner to take evidence comes too late. It should have been made before the hearing by a single justice. The full court cannot order evidence to be taken, except in special cases of accident or mistake, when “ further evidence ” is required, in addition to evidence duly taken and reported before a single justice. Gen. Sts. c. 113, § 21. 35th Rule in Chancery, 104 Mass. 574.

¶4Decree affirmed.

/115/mass/334 · .json · Public domain