Aldrich v. Husband

• Decision Date: 31 October 1881
• Citation: 131 Mass. 480
• Parties: Jeremiah K. Aldrich v. Hannah Husband
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

131 Mass. 480

Jeremiah K. Aldrich v. Hannah Husband

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

October 31, 1881

Bristol. Petition for partition of certain land in Taunton. Trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Knowlton, J., who reported the case for the determination of this court, in substance as follows:

On March 17, 1871, Charles Husband bought the land described in the petition, and on June 20, 1871, sold an undivided half thereof to the petitioner. In April 1873, he bought and removed to this land a building, and as tenant in common with a view to his own profit, and in the expectation of making with the petitioner some equitable and proper arrangement for the protection of his rights and the security of his investment in the property, he fitted it up as a dwelling-house connected with the realty in the usual way.

The petitioner lived in Rye, New Hampshire, and had no knowledge of the erection of this building, and gave Charles Husband no authority regarding it until he came to Taunton in September 1873, when he found the house finished and ready for occupation except the painting and papering, which was then being done and was soon after completed. No formal contract was ever made about the building; but from conversation between the petitioner and Charles Husband, the day he came to Taunton and first saw it, a mutual understanding and agreement grew up that the ownership of it should be and remain in Charles Husband until some new arrangement should be made; and the building was treated as his by both parties until his death, in February 1875, and afterward was treated as the respondent's, who succeeded to his rights in the property, until May 1877, when a claim of ownership of one half of it was first made by the petitioner. The entire cost of the building and of fitting it up was paid by Charles Husband; and it occupied a small lot upon one corner of the land in question.

The respondent contended that the building belonged solely to her, and could not be included in the partition; but the judge ruled that the foregoing facts would not warrant a finding of title in her favor.

She also contended that the above facts and findings, even if not sufficient in law to constitute the house the personal property of the respondent, nevertheless authorized such a partition of the land that the one half thereof containing the building should be assigned to her, and that the warrant to the commissioners might so direct; but the judge ruled otherwise, and ordered a partition to be made as prayed for.

If upon the facts, a finding could properly be made that the...