Walsh v. Keefe
John B. Walsh v. Ronald W. Keefe
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
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 [1972]) 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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.