Patterson v. Snell

Decision Date17 December 1877
Citation67 Me. 559
PartiesJOSEPH W. PATTERSON, petitioner for partition, v. THADDEUS SNELL.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

ON REPORT.

PETITION for partition.

S &. L. Titcomb, for the petitioner.

W S. Choate, for the respondent.

BARROWS J.

The petitioner, claiming to be seized of an undivided half, seeks partition of a parcel of land containing thirty acres upon which the respondent in 1842 or 1843 erected a house and barn, and of which he has ever since been in possession claiming to be sole seized.

Prior to 1834, the land with other parcels of real estate in Vassalboro' belonged to Thaddeus Snell, senior, father of the respondent.

The petitioner claims title under a deed from the administrator of Wm. W. Snell, the respondent's brother, who died in 1873, having lived in Vassalboro', a neighbor to the respondent, for more than thirty years while the respondent had sole possession of the premises. No question is made but what the probate proceedings touching the administration of Wm. W. Snell's estate and the sale of his property by his administrator are all regular, and we consider it proved that whatever title Wm. W. Snell had at his death the petitioner now holds. To show title in Wm. W. Snell, the petitioner produces from the records a copy of a deed dated September 9 1834, purporting to be a conveyance, by Thaddeus Snell, senior, to his two sons, the respondent and Wm. W., in consideration of love and affection, and one thousand dollars paid by them, of a parcel of land in Augusta, this thirty-acre piece in Vassalboro', also the grantor's home farm there, and half of the saw-mill and privilege and of a grist-mill privilege, " including all the lands, buildings, privileges and appurtenances of every description which I own and of which I am seized and possessed."

The deed seems to have been witnessed by three subscribing witnesses, and was not recorded until July 11, 1839, nearly a month after the grantor's death.

The administrator's deed and these records make the petitioner's case. The respondent produces and proves the execution of a deed of quitclaim, from his brother, Wm. W. Snell, to him dated October 21, 1841, and recorded the same day, of " all my right, title and interest in and to all the real estate situated in the town of Vassalboro' of which my father the late Thaddeus Snell of said Vassalboro' was seized at the time of his decease, being one undivided half of his property," and also an undivided half of a parcel owned by said grantor in common with Elias Craig. The consideration named in this deed is $1200. The grantee seems to have taken sole possession of the premises shortly after its execution. Its terms are sufficiently formal and the description of the estate sufficiently precise to convey whatever estate Wm. W. Snell had in lands in Vassalboro' as heir of his father. R. S., c. 73, § 14. Field v. Huston, 21 Me. 69. Marr v. Hobson, 22 Me. 321. Libby v. Thornton, 64 Me. 479.

But the petitioner contends that the premises passed by the deed of September 9, 1834, from Thaddeus Snell, senior, to Wm. W. and the respondent, and that it was not land of which Thaddeus Snell, senior, " was seized at the time of his decease." If the deed of September 9, 1834, was ever delivered by Thaddeus Snell, senior, with the intention that the title to the premises therein described should pass, this would follow. Are the circumstances such that such a delivery may be presumed, or inferred? " The possession and production of a deed by the grantee is prima facie evidence of its having been delivered; and for like reasons in the absence of all contradictory testimony the presumption arises, when found in the possession and produced by the grantor, that it has not been delivered," says Shepley, J., in Hatch v. Haskins, 17 Me. 391, 397.

The deed in question is not produced by the petitioner nor by the administrator of Wm. W. Snell, nor is there any evidence tending to show that it was ever in the possession of said Wm. W. in the life time of the grantor. The respondent, who is the other grantee named in it, denies all knowledge of its existence until within the last few years. He brings evidence from which we think it may fairly be inferred that it remained in the custody of Thaddeus Snell, senior, the grantor, at all events for some time after it was executed and was kept by him in a chest where he kept his own valuable papers, in the house on the homestead, which seems at one time towards the last of his life to have been occupied by him...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Cribbs v. Walker
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 28, 1905
    ...& Eng. Enc. Eq. 365; 20 A. 41; 24 N.E. 1036; 23 N.E. 378; 135 Ill. 137; 111 Ill. 563; 158 Ill. 567; 118 Mass. 155; 66 Me. 316; 65 Mo. 689; 67 Me. 559; 6 Conn. 111; 20 Wend. 44; 40 Ia. 57 Miss. 843; 120 Ind. 164; 30 N.E. 1041; 88 Mich. 650; 14 N.J.L. 137; 3 Greenl. 141; 58 Am. Dec. 610; 150 ......
  • Harvey v. Long
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 2, 1914
    ...presumption of non-delivery. Miller v. Eshleman, 43 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 447; Burton v. Boyd, 7 Kan. 17; Hatch v. Hoskins, 17 Me. 391; Patterson v. Snell, 67 Me. 559; Powers Russell, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 69; Parrot v. Avery, 159 Mass. 594; Alexander v. De Kernel, 81 Ky. 345. The burden of proving de......
  • Sargent v. Coolidge
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • April 4, 1979
    ...not to be presumed that Mrs. Coolidge, when she gave her deed, did not intend to convey anything. Rather, the reverse is true. Patterson v. Snell,67 Me. 559 (1877). Nonetheless, we will address the issue, whether the Superior Court Justice was correct in granting judgment for the on the the......
  • City of Auburn v. Mandarelli
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • May 15, 1974
    ...A deed's appearance upon the record does not per se operate as a delivery nor supersede the necessity of proof of delivery. Patterson v. Snell, 1877, 67 Me. 559; Jones v. Roberts, 1876, 65 Me. 273. A deed takes effect from and by delivery, and not from its date. Egery v. Woodard, 1868, 56 M......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT