From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Meader v. Cummings

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Oxford
Jan 16, 1933
163 A. 792 (Me. 1933)

Opinion

Opinion, January 16, 1933.

EQUITY.

An equity decree, not shown on appeal to be manifestly wrong, must stand.

On appeal by plaintiff. A Bill in Equity to declare null and void a deed given by plaintiff to defendant. From the decree of the sitting Justice dismissing the bill, plaintiff appealed. Appeal dismissed. Decree below affirmed. The case sufficiently appears in the opinion.

Albert Beliveau, for plaintiff.

Aretas E. Stearns, for defendant.

SITTING: PATTANGALL, C.J., DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, THAXTER, JJ.


In this equity suit, the bill was filed by a mother against her daughter, to avoid a deed of conveyance of real estate. The gist of the allegations is that, at the time of the execution and delivery of the instrument, the plaintiff, supposing that she was making her will, did not know, nor in the then state of her mental and physical health, could know, that she was conveying her home property in fee-simple. The defense conceded that there was no monetary consideration for the deed. Whether the grantee gave any promise, as a result of bargain with the grantor, for a breach of which a right to action would arise, was not passed upon, of record.

The issue was on answer, replication, and proof. The Justice sitting, without filing a finding of facts, signed and entered a decree dismissing the bill. The plaintiff appealed.

The case involves no legal question of importance or interest, and a discussion of the evidence would avail nothing of value. An equity decree, not shown on appeal to be manifestly wrong, must stand. The mandate will be:

Appeal dismissed. Decree below affirmed.


Summaries of

Meader v. Cummings

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Oxford
Jan 16, 1933
163 A. 792 (Me. 1933)
Case details for

Meader v. Cummings

Case Details

Full title:LIZZIE MEADER vs. LENA M. CUMMINGS

Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Oxford

Date published: Jan 16, 1933

Citations

163 A. 792 (Me. 1933)
163 A. 792

Citing Cases

Tewksbury v. Noyes

On the issue raised by the denial of the defendant of the allegations of the bill, the question before the…

Gerrish v. Chambers

The burden to show the error is upon the appellant. Savings Institution v. Johnston and Jose, 133 Me. 445,…