From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Walsh v. Keefe

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Jan 28, 1976
340 N.E.2d 898 (Mass. App. Ct. 1976)

Opinion

January 28, 1976.

The case was submitted on briefs.

Don L. Carpenter for John B. Walsh.

Jeffrey J. Binder for Ronald W. Keefe.


The testimony of the witness Glidden concerning his telephone conversation with the testator which was offered by the proponent of the copy of the codicil (as to which see Gannon v. MacDonald, 361 Mass. 851) was admissible in evidence in accordance with the principles stated in Phillips v. Chase, 201 Mass. 444, 448-449 (1909). See also Panell v. Rosa, 228 Mass. 594 (1917); Edelstein v. Old Colony Trust Co. 336 Mass. 659, 666 (1958); 8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2329, at 77 (Supp. 1975); McCormick, Evidence, § 94, at 198-199 (2d ed. 1972); Hughes, Evidence, § 166, at 174 (1961). The proponent was confronted with the presumption that the testator had destroyed the original of the codicil with intent to revoke it (see Miniter v. Irwin, 331 Mass. 8, 9 [1954]) as well as with express testimony to the same effect, and the proponent was entitled to have the judge consider the evidence to the contrary which was excluded. The decree entered on the petition of John B. Walsh is reversed, and that petition is to be tried anew.

So ordered.


Summaries of

Walsh v. Keefe

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Jan 28, 1976
340 N.E.2d 898 (Mass. App. Ct. 1976)
Case details for

Walsh v. Keefe

Case Details

Full title:JOHN B. WALSH vs. RONALD W. KEEFE

Court:Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Date published: Jan 28, 1976

Citations

340 N.E.2d 898 (Mass. App. Ct. 1976)
4 Mass. App. Ct. 771

Citing Cases

Nourse v. Nourse, No

Third, this Court finds that any attorney-client privilege which may have existed with respect to any of the…