Harold P. Williams

The case involved an attorney who sought payment from a decedent's estate for work performed in attempting to probate a will dated November 20, 1958, that named his client as executrix; after hearings, that document was disallowed as not legally executed, and an earlier will was allowed instead. The Probate Court had entered a decree directing the estate to pay the attorney $900 for compensation and expenses under G. L. c. 215, § 39A. On appeal, the court reversed the decree and denied the petition, holding that the statute permits recovery from the estate generally only when the attorney's services conferred a benefit by creating, preserving, or increasing the estate, which did not occur here because the later will was invalid.

procedureproperty

This case involved a tort action by the Hill family against Associated Transport, Inc., seeking damages for property damage to their home and personal belongings, personal injuries to Mrs. Hill, and consequential damages to Mr. Hill, all stemming from a detached tire from the defendant's semitrailer truck that crashed into their house in 1957. An auditor found the defendant's driver negligent for failing to properly inspect and tighten the wheel lugs after a tire change, and a jury returned verdicts for the plaintiffs on the relevant counts following the auditor's report. The court overruled the defendant's exceptions to the denial of directed verdicts and other rulings, holding that the evidence supported a finding of negligence because the driver should have known the lugs could loosen after driving with a heavy load and that more frequent inspections were needed. The court also determined that Mrs. Hill's injuries were proximately caused by the tire's detachment as a natural consequence of her instinctive reaction to the crash. Exceptions were overruled, affirming the judgments for the plaintiffs.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case is a probate petition by the executors of Esther Dimick's will seeking instructions on who is entitled to receive distributions of net income from a trust under article Fifth (a), which allocated shares to Dana Goldthwaite and Hilda Shortt for life and then to their 'issue' per stirpes. The court ruled that 'issue' means children, the beneficiary classes close at the deaths of Hilda and Dana rather than remaining open indefinitely, and income is to be paid accordingly to the named individuals and their living children. The core reasoning was that this construction avoids invalidity under the rule against perpetuities by limiting the period of class growth, while remaining consistent with the testatrix's overall testamentary plan as shown by the will's structure and prior drafts.

property

This case involved a building contractor suing Jet Spray Cooler, Inc. and the trustee of a real estate trust for breaching an alleged oral agreement to hire the plaintiff to erect a warehouse on a cost-plus-ten-percent basis, based on a handshake following negotiations over plans and cost estimates. The plaintiff sought damages equal to its expected profit but presented only varying cost estimates, while the defendants ultimately built the structure themselves. The court affirmed the jury's award of nominal damages of one dollar per defendant, holding that a breach occurred but the plaintiff could not prove with substantial certainty the actual construction costs needed to calculate lost profits, as the evidence consisted of estimates and an incomparable completed building cost.

business & regulatory

The case concerned whether the City of Salem could use a three-acre portion of Ledge Hill Park, devised by William Mack in 1895 for perpetual use as public grounds or a park, as the site for a public school building under a 1957 state statute. The city, its park commissioners, and school committee sought a declaratory judgment on the issue after the land had been accepted and maintained exclusively for park purposes since 1896. The court held that the devise created a trust restricting the land to park use, that the city's acceptance formed an enforceable contract, and that school construction would materially conflict with that purpose, rendering the statute ineffective to authorize the new use. It therefore affirmed the lower court's decree barring the school committee from proceeding.

property

This case involves two consolidated tort actions brought by a credit union against a borrower who allegedly obtained a loan by fraudulently misrepresenting his existing debts to other lenders. The borrower later filed for bankruptcy and moved to dismiss the suits, arguing that the debt was discharged under the federal Bankruptcy Act since the plaintiff had notice and the claim was provable. The court treated the motion as a demurrer and held that an adjudication of bankruptcy alone does not defeat the claim, as the debt is not extinguished and any discharge defense must be affirmatively pleaded by the defendant rather than anticipated in the plaintiff's declaration. It reversed the dismissals, ruling that the cases should proceed to a hearing on the merits.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved an assignee for the benefit of creditors of an insolvent corporation seeking to recover the corporation's bank deposits and enforce payment of checks drawn on those funds, after the bank refused payment and instead applied the deposits as a set-off against the corporation's unmatured promissory note held by the bank. The trial judge found for the plaintiff assignee on the deposit claim but the appellate court reversed, holding that the bank was entitled to the set-off. The court reasoned that the assignment for creditors, unlike mere insolvency, effectively put the corporation beyond its ability to pay the note at maturity and jeopardized the bank's collection rights, thereby triggering the right of equitable set-off even before the note's due date. The court also upheld the bank's refusal to honor the checks and its handling of trusteed funds, as no balance remained available after the set-off and the assignee had no greater rights than the corporation.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved an appeal under Massachusetts zoning law from the denial of a permit to construct a commercial greenhouse on land zoned for single residences in Winchester. The board of appeals refused the permit, citing increased traffic on a busy route and conflicts with long-range town planning for residential use, and the Superior Court upheld that decision after finding the project would create hazards and harm the neighborhood. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, concluding that the board exceeded its authority because the area had not become primarily residential, the proposed greenhouse would not substantially increase traffic or affect public welfare, and denial based solely on future planning was arbitrary. The court noted that reasonable conditions could still be imposed but that the unconditional refusal lacked sufficient evidence of harm.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved the State Tax Commission appealing a decision by the Appellate Tax Board to abate an income tax assessed on a shareholder's dividend from a real estate trust that had sold all its land. The court affirmed the abatement, holding that the distribution was not taxable under the relevant income tax statute. The reasoning was that the dividend qualified as income derived from real estate, which is excepted from taxation, and this treatment applies regardless of whether the trust filed a specific agreement to be taxed as an entity.

taxesproperty

This case is an appeal by the defendant from his conviction of assault and battery following a retrial limited to manslaughter and assault and battery charges after a prior reversal of a manslaughter conviction. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the assault and battery conviction, as witnesses observed the defendant near his injured wife at the scene, medical testimony established that her abdominal bruise resulted from a kick and her death from skull fractures, and the defendant had quarreled with and left her. The court rejected multiple assignments of error, including the denial of a directed verdict, the exclusion of a courtroom demonstration, the admission of the defendant's statements indicating consciousness of guilt, an employment record of the victim's state of mind, and expert medical opinion on the cause of injury, finding no prejudicial error and affirming the judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a contract dispute between a sports writer and a country club corporation over compensation for organizing the 1956 PGA Championship tournament at the defendant's golf club. The plaintiff alleged an oral agreement for a $5,000 minimum payment plus a share of profits, while the defendant maintained the deal was for $1,000 plus a family membership; alternatively, the plaintiff sought recovery on an account annexed for the fair value of his services. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, but the court held there was no evidence supporting a contract for either claimed amount, and the plaintiff provided no evidence of the reasonable value of his specialized services to support more than nominal damages on the quantum meruit count. The court further found that the jury instructions inaccurately framed the issues and that the verdict was not warranted by the evidence, leading to the conclusion that a new trial was required despite the lack of a directed verdict motion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a construction company and its president convicted of larceny for submitting inflated bills to the Massachusetts Metropolitan District Commission for dismantling and storing a tent, including double-billing labor, overcharging insurance, and misrepresenting storage provider, plus perjury for the president about storage location. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed all convictions, holding that the evidence did not establish intent to defraud beyond reasonable doubt for the larceny charges, as errors had plausible explanations and the remedy was civil, and that the false statement in perjury was not shown to be material to the investigation. The court emphasized that the Commonwealth failed to prove the necessary elements beyond conjecture.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved two minor children who were injured when they collided with the defendant's car while crossing a street in Fall River, Massachusetts, after the defendant turned into the intersection. The plaintiffs sued in tort for personal injuries, but an auditor found that the children's contributory negligence caused the accident. The trial judge denied the defendant's motions for directed verdicts, and a jury returned verdicts for the plaintiffs. The court overruled the defendant's exceptions, holding that the auditor's findings did not compel a ruling of contributory negligence as a matter of law and that there was sufficient evidence of the defendant's negligence in failing to watch the children. The court also upheld the restriction on defense counsel's argument to the jury regarding the impact of verdicts on compulsory automobile insurance rates.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a tort claim by minor plaintiff Sandra Yanowitz and her father against defendant Augenstern, who controlled a store entranceway, for injuries from her slip and fall on accumulated snow, ice, and slush shortly after making a purchase on a clear evening following a snowstorm. The plaintiff discontinued claims against the lessor and other counts, leaving only the negligence count against Augenstern, on which the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff after the trial court denied his motion for a directed verdict. The appellate court overruled the defendant's exceptions, holding that contributory negligence was a jury question and that the evidence warranted findings that the dangerous condition on the sloping entrance had existed long enough for the defendant to have known of it and removed it in the exercise of reasonable care.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case involves a declaratory judgment action by Nichols & Co. seeking coverage as an unnamed insured under a motor vehicle liability policy issued by Travelers to Thomas Barron. The underlying incident occurred when a bale of wool being unloaded from Barron's truck struck and injured Alice Higgs, leading to a tort suit where both Barron and Nichols were found liable and settled the claim. The court held that Nichols was not entitled to indemnity under Coverage B of the policy, which extends to persons responsible for the vehicle's operation with the owner's consent. The reasoning focused on the fact that Nichols' employees participated in the unloading by directing which bales to drop and preparing to receive them but never possessed or controlled the truck, so they were not responsible for its operation within the policy's terms.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case concerned a planning board's disapproval of a subdivision plan submitted by the plaintiff under Massachusetts law governing such plans. The board rejected the plan in part because it did not conform to a zoning by-law that the town adopted after the preliminary plan was filed. The Superior Court ruled that the disapproval exceeded the board's authority, as state law required the plans to be governed by the zoning by-law in effect at the time of the preliminary plan's submission, and the new by-law had not yet been adopted then. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decree, holding that disapproval based on the later by-law was improper.

property

This case was a suit in equity where the plaintiffs sought to remove a portion of the defendant's macadam driveway from their land and enjoin the trespass, while the defendant claimed title by adverse possession. The court determined that the defendant had acquired ownership of the disputed strip through open, notorious, exclusive, and adverse use for more than twenty years, even though the use stemmed from a mistaken belief about the property boundary. Consequently, the court affirmed the decree dismissing the plaintiffs' bill with costs.

property

This case was a tort action by a customer against F. W. Woolworth Co. for personal injuries sustained when she tripped on a plastic bag in the store, fell against a book rack, and was struck by the falling rack. The trial judge denied the defendant's motion for a directed verdict, and the jury found for the plaintiff. On appeal, the court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove negligence, as there was no showing that the bag had been on the floor long enough for the store to have known of and removed it, and the book rack's fall resulted from the plaintiff's own action rather than any independent negligence by the defendant. The court sustained the defendant's exceptions and ordered judgment for the defendant.

torts & liability

This case involved a writ of entry filed by the demandant, Virta, to establish his interest in property at 164 Richmond Avenue in Worcester after attaching it in a prior tort action against the Aksila trustees. The trustees had conveyed the property to tenant MacKey shortly after the initial attachment attempt, and Virta alleged the transfer was fraudulent to hinder creditors. The Land Court found that the conveyance was made with actual intent to defraud, hinder, and delay the demandant as a creditor, that MacKey knew of and participated in the fraudulent purpose, and that the demandant was in fact hindered. The court ruled the transfer violated the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Law and entered judgment for the demandant, allowing the attachment to stand. The decision rested on evidence including statements by MacKey acknowledging the purpose of the transfer and the overall circumstances of the family-related dealings and timing relative to the tort judgment.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case was a tort action by an elderly plaintiff who tripped over a red oil hose stretched across a public sidewalk in Worcester while an oil truck delivered fuel to a nearby house, resulting in a fractured kneecap. The court upheld the auditor's findings and entered judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $4,000, overruling the defendant's exceptions to the denial of his motions to strike the auditor's conclusions and for judgment in his favor. The core reasoning was that although laying the hose across the sidewalk was not shown to be an improper use of the public way, the defendant's agent was negligent in failing to provide any warning of its presence because the obstruction was not so obvious that travelers could be expected to see and avoid it, and the subsidiary facts supported the finding that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent.

torts & liability