Case ID: mass_269/html/0125-01.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

Ellen T. Sullivan vs. Nora C. Mulvihill, administratrix, & others.
    Norfolk.
    November 8, 1929.
    November 12, 1929.
    Present: Rugg, C.J., Crosby, Pierce, Carroll, & Wait, JJ.
    
      Probate Court, Appeal.
    The record upon an appeal from a decree of a probate court dismissing a petition to vacate decrees in partition proceedings contained no report of evidence and no statement of findings by the judge and therefore showed no error of law, and the decrees were affirmed.
    Petition, filed in the Probate Court for the county of Norfolk on April 10, 1929, for the vacation of certain decrees in partition proceedings. After being heard by McCoole, J., a decree was entered dismissing the petition. The petitioner appealed.
    
      E. T. Sullivan, pro se, submitted a brief.
    No argument nor brief for the respondents.
   By the Court.

This is an appeal from a decree of a probate court dismissing a petition to vacate decrees dated June 13, 1925, and January 20, 1926. No evidence was reported and no finding of fact was made by the probate judge. The only possible question open is whether the decree could properly have been entered on the pleadings. Brogna v. Commissioner of Banks, 248 Mass. 241, 243. Manifestly such decree rightly could have been entered. It is too plain for discussion that there is no error of law in the entry of the decree here appealed from.

Decree affirmed.