Haynes v. Greene, 134 A. 853 (R.I. 1926). · Go Syfert
Haynes v. Greene, 134 A. 853 (R.I. 1926). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: In re Estate of Piche (vt, 1997-06-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Estate of Piche
Vt. · 1997 · confidence medium
See, e.g., In re Estate of Adams, 155 Vt. 517, 519, 522 , 587 A.2d 958, 959-61 (1990) (affirming in part probate court’s determination that title to bank accounts passed by right of survivorship); Trask v. Walker’s Estate, 100 Vt. 51, 55, 64-65 , 134 A. 853, 855, 859 (1926) (upholding probate court’s determination that decedent spent or transferred property inter vivos and that executrix was correct in not including such property in accounting of estate). 2 As the probate court noted, determining title to personal property, or “what is ‘in’ and what is ‘out’ of the probate esta…
discussed Cited "see" In Re Estate of Farr (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Vt. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Trask, 100 Vt. at 62 , 134 A. at 858 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Martha E. Haynes
v.
Albert S. Greene.
Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
Nov 8, 1926.
134 A. 853
Charles E. Tilley, for complainant. Malcolm D. Champlin, for respondent.
Sweetland, Stearns, Rathbun, Sweeney, Barrows.
Published
Sweetland, C. J.

The above entitled cause in equity is pending in this court upon appeal from the final decree of the Superior Court. It is before us at this time on the respondent’s motion in which he sets out that, at the trial of the cause in the Superior Court, by reason of accident and mistake he was deprived of the testimony of one Edgar E. Mowry, which testimony was material and relevant to the issues in the cause and which, if it had been presented at the trial and believed by the Superior Court, might have caused that court to come to a different conclusion. Relying upon the provisions of Section 30, Chapter 339, Gen. Laws 1923, the respondent moves for leave to present said testimony before this court that the same may be considered in the determination of the appeal.

We have examined the affidavits filed in support of the motion and also the counter affidavits introduced by the complainant. We are of the opinion that justice requires that the respondent be permitted to have the testimony of said witness before us as part of his evidence upon the appeal.

In. granting leave for the taking of new evidence to be used in this court upon an appeal in equity, the court in each case will make such special order as appears to it to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

It is ordered that on December 15, 1926, at the time of hearing the appeal upon its merits, the respondent may present Edgar E. Mowry as a witness for oral examination before us upon the issues in the cause, and at that time the complainant majr present such witnesses as she may have for oral examination in rebuttal.