Judges: Stiness, Tillinghast, Rogers
Filed Date: 1/10/1902
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/14/2024
The husband of Mabel Battey Mathewson, deceased, was appointed administrator of her estate, and her father appealed from the decree of appointment. The appeal was dismissed in the Common Pleas Division, and the appellant asks for a new trial. The record shows that the case was heard on a motion to amend the reasons of appeal, and *Page 475 dismissed. We find no written motion showing what amendment was proposed, nor any statement of it in the petition for a new trial.
The appellant's brief assumes that he was both father and creditor of the deceased, and we may infer that such was the nature of the amendment. The court had power to grant such amendment, Gen. Laws cap. 248, § 6, but of course it would not do so if the reasons of appeal, as amended, would not state a case. The only ground alleged for a new trial is that the dismissal was contrary to law. We think that the appeal was properly dismissed.
Gen. Laws, cap. 212, § 9, says that a husband shall be entitled as of course to administration of the personal estate of his wife in case of her intestacy. In Weaver v. Chace,
The appeal was therefore properly dismissed, as not lawfully taken. Gannon v. Doyle,
Petition dismissed.