McMahon v. Lawler
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtLoring, J.
[After the foregoing statement of the case.] If we give full credence to the fact testified to by the two nieces esactly as they put it, the decree of the single justice is right. What they testified to was an admission that the deposit in question belonged to the mother of those two nieces. The legal title to the deposit was confessedly in the intestate. If the deposit belonged to the sister of the intestate (the mother- of the two nieces) it was bcause a perfected trust in the deposit had been created in favor of the sister and mother, by way of gift.
As matter of evidence it is ordinarily…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Scrivens v. North Easton Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
- Eastman v. Woronoco Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884
- J. Regester's Sons Co. v. ReedMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
3Cited by7 opinions
- Bone v. HolmesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- O'Hara v. O'HaraMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Supple v. Suffolk Savings Bank for SeamenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Bailey v. New Bedford Institution for SavingsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
- Smith v. Scottish Union & National InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.