Aldrich v. Aldrich

Decision Date21 June 1883
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
PartiesAaron Aldrich v. James M. Aldrich & another

Argued October 9, 1882

Worcester.

Affirmed.

W Gaston & C. G. Keyes, for the defendants.

B. W Potter, for the plaintiff.

W. Allen J. C. Allen Colburn & Holmes, JJ., absent.

OPINION

W. Allen J.

This bill in equity alleges that the defendant Aldrich purchased certain land, and took a conveyance thereof, at the request and for the accommodation of the plaintiff, with the verbal agreement that the plaintiff should occupy the premises; and that the defendant Aldrich thereupon gave to the plaintiff a written agreement to convey the land to him upon the performance of certain conditions; and asks for a decree for specific performance and for damages.

The agreement is contained in the condition of a bond given by said defendant to the plaintiff, and the material part of it is in these words: "Whereas the said obligor has agreed to sell and convey unto the said obligee a certain parcel of real estate situate in Douglas, known as the Aaron Aldrich farm, and bounded as follows, namely, as is bounded in a deed from Luther and Betsey Cragin to J. M. Aldrich." The evidence shows that the plaintiff has tendered performance of all that was to be performed by him, and is entitled to a decree. The only other questions made are in respect to what lands are included in the agreement.

The deed referred to included seven parcels of land separately described, none of which were designated in the deed as the Aaron Aldrich farm; and the first question is, whether the agreement includes all the land described in the deed, or but a portion of it.

Aaron Aldrich, the grandfather of the parties to this suit, died in 1809, seised of real estate which included all but one parcel of the land in question. His homestead, or home farm, as it was called, consisted of about forty acres, and included the three parcels first described in said deed, which lie contiguous to each other and contain in all about sixteen acres, and upon which are the farmhouse and buildings. He also owned about fifty acres of pasture and woodland lying about a mile from the homestead, and called the Ball Hill land, which included the three parcels next described in said deed. These three parcels contain about sixteen acres. Since the death of Aaron Aldrich there have been partitions among his children, and the heirs of his children, of both the home farm and the Ball Hill land, and conveyances of portions of them have been made. It does not appear when, or under what circumstances, Betsey Cragin, who conveyed to the defendant, and who was the sister of the plaintiff, acquired title to the homestead and Ball Hill lots in question. They were known as part of the farm of Aaron Aldrich. The seventh parcel described in the Cragin deed was called the Thompson land, and the title to it is traced no farther back in the evidence than to a deed from Paul White and his wife, who was the mother of Mrs. Cragin, to the plaintiff, of about twenty-three acres of land, by the terms of which he was to convey three acres of the land by measurement to each of his sisters Sarah Aldrich and Betsey Cragin. He conveyed accordingly, and the land so conveyed by the plaintiff is, or includes, the lot in question. This land is situated about a mile from the homestead, and about half a mile from the Ball Hill land, and is "sprout land," and, at the time of the Cragin deed, was not and has not since then been occupied or improved by any one.

It also appears that the conveyance from Betsey Cragin to the defendant Aldrich was made at the request and for the benefit of the plaintiff; that he had lived upon the place for nearly fifty years, and desired to purchase it from her, and paid part of the consideration in a note which he held against her; that the defendant Aldrich assisted him in making the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Peay v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 8 Enero 1898
    ...264; 62 Ill. 320; 60 F. 551; 45 Ia. 569; 27 Kas. 544; 10 La. An. 38; 71 Me. 227; 3 Suth. Dam. § 716, and note; 9 Barb. 459; 1 Cush. 451; 135 Mass. 153; 99 Mass. 281; 114 Mass. 518; 16 Mich. 447; 61 Miss. 355, 361; 74 Mo. 147; 47 Hun, 355; 17 N.Y. 54; 23 A. 310; 53 Vt. 190; 73 Wis. 147, 152;......
  • Buffington v. Mcnally
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 31 Mayo 1906
    ...that it meant a period expiring the last Saturday of the following May also was admissible. Stoops v. Smith, ubi supra; Aldrich v. Aldrich, 135 Mass. 153, 157; v. Welsh, ubi supra. Whatever confusion there may have been in some of the earlier cases, it is settled by Colburn v. Phillips, 13 ......

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