Opinion
November 13, 1925.
November 13, 1925.
Present: RUGG, C.J., BRALEY, PIERCE, WAIT, SANDERSON, JJ.
Probate Court, Jurisdiction, Removal of trustee, Appeal. Trust, Removal of trustee.
A motion for a continuance of a hearing in the Probate Court is addressed entirely to the discretion of the court, and its denial will not be disturbed upon an appeal to this court. A contention that there was a defect in the service upon the respondent of a citation which issued upon a petition in the Probate Court for the removal of a trustee is not open an appeal by the respondent from a decree removing him which was entered after a full hearing upon the merits.
PETITION, filed in the Probate Court for the county of Norfolk on July 6, 1921, for the removal of the respondent as trustee under the will of Sarah B. Akerman.
In the Probate Court, the petition was heard by McCoole, J., a stenographer having been appointed under G.L.c. 215, § 18, to take the evidence. By order of the judge, a decree was entered removing the respondent. The respondent appealed.
H.B. Mackintosh, for the respondent.
J.H. Baldwin, for the petitioner, submitted the case without argument or brief.
This is a petition for the removal of a trustee. The trustee appeared in the Probate Court and was heard. His motion for a continuance was addressed entirely to the discretion of the court. The case comes up on an appeal from a decree removing the trustee. If there was any defect in the service of the notice on the petition for removal, (which we do not decide,) that is not open to the petitioner at this stage of the proceedings. A careful examination of the entire evidence at the hearing convinces us that there was no error in the entry of the decree. It is not necessary to recite it in detail.
Decree affirmed.