Legal Opinion

Cornell v. Noonan

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided March 28, 1934PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtWait, J.

No new question of law or of fact is involved herein. The defendant administrator -with the will annexed of Hugh Howard MacDonald appeals from a decree establishing a valid gift inter vivos of certain personal property claimed as her own by the plaintiff, and ordering the delivery of the property to the plaintiff. The evidence is not reported; but the trial judge filed findings of fact. It is the defendant’s contention that the findings are inconsistent with the conclusion that the deceased made the gift in question. He does not dispute that unless this inconsistency appears and they are…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Pierce v. Boston Five Cents Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
  2. Robinson v. PeroMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
  3. Millett v. TempleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
  4. Mulloy v. Charlestown Five Cents Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
  5. Armstrong v. OrlerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. American Employers' Insurance v. WebsterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API