Edson White &Amp; Wife v. Benjamin E. Thayer &Amp; Others
Citation | 121 Mass. 226 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Decision Date | 09 November 1876 |
Parties | Edson White & wife v. Benjamin E. Thayer & others |
Hampshire. Bill in equity, filed April 3, 1876, against Benjamin E. Thayer, Mary G. Thayer, Lucy A. Knight, and William G. Bassett, alleging the following facts:
On July 20, 1860, Edson White, being seised in fee of a certain parcel of land in Easthampton, conveyed the same with the usual covenants of warranty to one Munson. Edson White derived his title to the premises, partly by inheritance from his brother Lysander White, and partly by deed from the other heirs of Lysander, who died seised in fee of the premises. By the will of Lysander, Frances A. White, his widow, became entitled to a life estate in the premises, and afterwards married the plaintiff Edson; and, at the time of the conveyance by Edson White to Munson, Frances A. White misunderstanding the will of Lysander, supposed that all her interest in the premises had ceased on her marriage with Edson, except her possible right of dower as his wife, and to release that right, joined with her husband in his conveyance to Munson, and believed she had thereby released all her rights in the premises. Munson, on March 15, 1864 conveyed the premises with like covenants to Benjamin E Thayer; and Thayer, on May 2, 1864, included the premises in a mortgage, containing a power of sale, to one Ferry, with like covenants, and on June 19, 1869, conveyed the premises in fee to one Clark, who in turn, on July 12, 1869, conveyed the premises to Mary G. Thayer, wife of Benjamin E. Pursuant to the power of sale in his mortgage, Ferry duly advertised the premises to be sold, for breach of condition thereof, and, on August 24, 1874, they were sold to the defendant Bassett, and Ferry conveyed the premises to him. After the premises were advertised, but before the sale, Benjamin E. Thayer, having discovered the outstanding life estate of Frances A. White, informed her and her husband thereof, and represented that her life interest was an incumbrance on the premises, for which Edson White was liable on his covenants to Munson, and that it was a cloud upon the title, which must be removed, or an action would be begun. Thayer then urged Frances A. White to execute a deed of release, which he had in his possession, and falsely and fraudulently represented that he was advised by counsel that such a release would perfect the title to the premises, would not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Robinson v. Robinson
...and P. Railroad v. P. and K. R. R. 54 Me. 183; Swampscot Machine Co. v. Perry, 119 Mass. 123; Boardman v. Jackson, 119 Mass. 161; White v. Thayer, 121 Mass. 227; Lewis Cocks, 23 Wal. 469; Pratt v. Pond, 5 Allen 59; Woodman v. Saltonstall, 7 Cush. 181; R. S., c. 90, § 13; 2 Jones on Mortgage......
-
Russell v. Barstow
...of possession. Pratt v. Pond, 5 Allen, 59;Bassett v. Brown, 100 Mass. 355;Swamscott Machine Co. v. Perry, 119 Mass. 123;White v. Thayer, 121 Mass. 226. Plaintiff must try his title at law. If the relief prayed for was granted, it would not settle the controversy, or put the plaintiff in pos......
-
Russell v. Barstow
...out of possession. Pratt v. Pond, 5 Allen, 59; Bassett v. Brown, 100 Mass. 355; Swamscott Machine Co. v. Perry, 119 Mass. 123; White v. Thayer, 121 Mass. 226. Plaintiff must his title at law. If the relief prayed for was granted, it would not settle the controversy, or put the plaintiff in ......
- James H. Clark v. Charles L. Sawyer &Amp; Others