Case ID: mass_269/html/0074-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles C. Burns vs. Edward S. Burns & another.
    Essex.
    October 11, 1929.
    October 11, 1929.
    Present: Rugg, C.J., Pierce, Wait, Sanderson, & Field, JJ.
    
      Probate Court, Jury issues.
    Application of the principles stated in Fuller v. Sylvia, 240 Mass. 49, in the affirmation of a decree of a probate court denying a motion for jury issues on a petition for the proof of a will.
    Petition, filed in the Probate Court for the county of Essex on January 16, 1929, for the proof of the will of Edward Burns, late of Lawrence.
    
      Edward S. Burns and Winnifred G. Harlow, a son and a daughter of the alleged testator to whom, the alleged will stated, the testator “intentionally” left “no part or parcel of” his estate, opposed the granting of the petition and moved that issues be framed for trial by jury. The motion was heard by Dow, J., a stenographer having been appointed under G. L. c. 215, § 18, and was denied. The respondents appealed.
    The case was submitted on briefs.
    
      M. A. Flanagan & J. J. Fox, Jr., for the respondents.
    
      J. P. Kane & W. J. Delaney, for the petitioner.
   By the Court.

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to frame issues for trial by jury respecting the will of a deceased person. The governing principles of law are settled; they need not be repeated. The showing as to facts need not be narrated. A careful reading of the record shows no error of law. Fuller v. Sylvia, 240 Mass. 49. Clark v. McNeil, 246 Mass. 250. McCormack v. Quilty, 266 Mass. 402, and cases there collected. Swift v. Charest, 268 Mass. 47.

Order denying issues affirmed.