Blanchard v. Lowell

• Decision Date: 05 January 1901
• Citation: 59 N.E. 114,177 Mass. 501
• Parties: BLANCHARD v. LOWELL; BLANCHARD v. BATCHELDER; BLANCHARD v. SCAPLEN.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

177 Mass. 501

59 N.E. 114

BLANCHARD

v.LOWELL;

BLANCHARD

v.BATCHELDER;

BLANCHARD

v.SCAPLEN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

Jan. 5, 1901.

Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Essex county; Marcus P. Knowlton, Judge.

Three petitions by Walter E. Blanchard, one against Moses H. Lowell, one against Walter G. Batchelder, and the other against William A. Scaplen. The court found for petitioner, and defendants except. Exceptions overruled.

Wm. H. Niles, for petitioner.

James C. Batchelder, for respondents.

LATHROP, J.

These are three petitions, under St. 1893, c. 340, to quiet title to a parcel of land in Lynn. The first questionraised by the respondents is that the petition does not allege that the petitioner has a record title to the land in question. Each petition alleges that the petitioner is seised in fee simple and is in possession of the land in question, which is described by metes and bounds. It also alleges that the record title of the premises is clouded by an adverse claim, or a possibility of an adverse claim, made by the defendant, who claims to own the premises in fee. The prayer is that the defendant may be summoned to show cause why he should not bring an action to try such claim. No such question as is now sought to be raised was brought to the attention of the single justice of this court who heard the cases, although it is raised by the answers. The request for a ruling was in general terms, and was as follows: ‘The respondents requested the court to rule that upon the pleadings and evidence the petitioner was not entitled to maintain his petition.’ This ruling the court refused to give, and the petitioner excepted.

If we assume that the question is open to the respondents, and need not be taken by demurrer, we are of opinion that the ruling was right. It is true that the statute applies only to a record title clouded by an adverse claim, or by the possibility of such claim (Arnold v. Reed, 162 Mass. 438, 38 N. E. 1132), and that the petition must be brought by certain persons; yet the statute goes on to describe what the petitioner must set forth in his petition, namely, his interest, a description of the premises, the claims, and the possible adverse claimants, so far as known to him. The statute therefore states the jurisdictional facts, and if these are set forth it is enough. It is true that in Arnold v. Reed, ubi supra, it was said by Chief Justice Field: ‘The question in this case is whether the petitioners allege and show a record title to the real property described in the petition;’ but the decision went upon the ground that the petitioners did not have a record title, which was the only question raised by the report which we have examined.

The next question is whether the petitioner showed that he had a record title. The bill of exceptions shows a record title in the petitioner. It is true that it also shows a record title in the respondents. But if the petitioner has, in addition to a record title, possession, the question whether he has a better title or not does not arise, and is not to be determined in these proceedings, but in the actions which the respondents may be ordered to bring.

The remaining question is whether the petitioner showed that he was in possession of the land claiming an estate of freehold therein at the time of the date of the petition, namely, December 18, 1899. The exceptions state that the petitioner testified that the premises described in the deed first herein mentioned (which we understand to mean the deed of 1871) were formerly inclosed by a...