Swan v. Tapley
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Petition, filed in the Probate Court on October 23, 1911, under R. L. c. 184, §§ 34-45, for the partition and sale of certain real estate in Springfield to be apportioned and distributed among the heirs at law of Diodate L. Swan, late of Springfield, one of whom was Leila W. Tapley, the wife of George K. Tapley. The Probate Court made a decree confirming a report of commissioners and ordering a partition, a sale and a distribution in accordancet herewith.
Read the full summary
Petition, filed in the Probate Court on October 23, 1911, under R. L. c. 184, §§ 34-45, for the partition and sale of certain real estate in Springfield to be apportioned and distributed among the heirs at law of Diodate L. Swan, late of Springfield, one of whom was Leila W. Tapley, the wife of George K. Tapley. The Probate Court made a decree confirming a report of commissioners and ordering a partition, a sale and a distribution in accordancet herewith. From this decree George IC. Tapley appealed. The case was submitted on briefs.
1Opinion of the CourtSheldon, J.
The appellant had no real interest in the proceedings, and was not a proper party thereto. He was not aggrieved by the decree. Potter v. Wheeler, 13 Mass. 504, 506. His wife’s undivided interest, as one of her father’s heirs, in the property of which partition had been sought was her separate property, and he had no vested interest therein. Harrington v. Harrington, 13 Gray, 513. Fales v. Fales, 148 Mass. 42. Flynn v. Flynn, 171 Mass. 312. The decree dismissing the appeal must be affirmed.
So ordered.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Flynn v. FlynnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- Potter v. WheelerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
- Fales v. FalesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
3Cited by2 opinions
- Monroe v. CooperMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
- Hayden v. KeownMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1919