Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 215, § 23 (2026)

Effect of appeal; equity cases

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 23. An appeal from a final or interlocutory order or decree in equity of a probate court made in the exercise of any jurisdiction in equity shall not suspend or stay proceedings under such order or decree pending the appeal. But the probate court or a justice of the supreme judicial court, in case of such appeal, may stay all proceedings under such order or decree and make necessary or proper orders to protect the rights of persons interested pending the appeal; and any such order of the probate court for a stay of proceedings or for protection of any such rights may be varied or discharged by a justice of the supreme judicial court upon motion, and shall not be otherwise subject to an appeal.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1932–2003 · leading case: Gilmore v. Gilmore, 341 N.E.2d 655 (Mass. 1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gilmore v. Gilmore, 341 N.E.2d 655 (Mass. 1976). · cites it 2× “Before discussing the merits of Sandra’s argument, we respond briefly to the three procedural issues raised by Jerold.”

Mahoney v. Mahoney, 370 N.E.2d 1011 (Mass. App. Ct. 1977). · cites it 4× “, and was thereafter submitted on the record and briefs to the other Justices, all of whom took part in this decision in accordance with the provisions of Mass.”

Huber v. Huber, 561 N.E.2d 863 (Mass. 1990). · cites it 2× “G. L. c. 215, §§ 23, 24 (1988 ed.). The Appeals Court invited “the attention of the Probate Court and the Legislature to what may have been an oversight in failing to make some provision for the automatic stay of orders [concerning the transfer of nonmonetary assets] pending…”

Wood v. Wood, 342 N.E.2d 712 (Mass. 1976). “223, § 115, does not apply to Probate Courts, but G. L. c. 215, § 23, authorizes the Probate Court to “make necessary or proper orders to protect the rights of persons interested pending the appeal.”

Eldridge v. Eldridge, 180 N.E. 137 (Mass. 1932). “G. L. c. 215, § 23, and § 24 as amended by St.”

Pemberton v. Pemberton, 411 N.E.2d 1303 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980). “1114, § 62; G. L. c. 215, §§ 23, 24, the latter as appearing in St.”

Scholz v. Scholz, 324 N.E.2d 617 (Mass. 1975). “G. L. c. 215, §§ 23, 24. Bloom v. Bloom, 353 Mass.”

Daigle v. Daigle, 363 N.E.2d 1353 (Mass. App. Ct. 1977). “62[g], effective July 1, 1975), as he contends, or whether, as the wife asserts, her decree became absolute at the expiration of six months following the entry of the decree nisi because of the husband’s failure to obtain a stay of that decree from becoming absolute.”

Scholz v. Scholz, 314 N.E.2d 139 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974). “The libellee seasonably appealed from a decree of divorce nisi granted to his wife in a Probate Court on July 10, 1972, but he failed to seek or obtain a stay of the decree pending the appeal under the provisions of G. L. c. 215, §§ 23 and 24. In the absence of such a stay, the…”

Mandel v. Mandel, 800 N.E.2d 308 (Mass. 2003). · cites it 2× “Sarah Fitzpatrick Mandel appeals from an order of a single justice of this court denying her petition pursuant to G. L. c. 215, § 23, for an emergency stay of a Probate and Family Court order.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.