Brown v. Matthews

• Decision Date: 08 May 1875
• Citation: 117 Mass. 506
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: Albert Brown & another v. Nathan Matthews

117 Mass. 506

Albert Brown & another v. Nathan Matthews

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

May 8, 1875

Suffolk. Petition, filed April 1, 1873, under the Gen. Sts. c. 134 § 49, to compel the respondent to bring an action to try his alleged title to a parcel of land in Boston. The answer disclaimed title as to a part of the described premises; and as to the residue, denied the seisin and possession of the petitioners, and alleged that the respondent was seised and possessed thereof. Hearing before Endicott, J., who reported the case to the full court in substance as follows:

The petitioners claimed title under a quitclaim deed from the Boston Water Power Company, dated October 7, and recorded October 26, 1870, which by its terms purported to include and convey the disputed premises. The respondent claimed title under quitclaim deeds from the heirs of Robert Ralston, dated February 8, 1871, which purported to convey a strip of land extending southeasterly to the old line of the channel as it existed in the year 1834, and which was claimed by the respondent to include that part of the premises described in the petition not disclaimed in the answer.

It appeared in evidence on behalf of the petitioners that the land in dispute, prior to 1867, consisted of flats partially covered with water; that between the months of April and June, 1867, these flats had been filled with gravel about twelve feet deep, by and at the expense of the Boston Water Power Company, of which corporation the respondent was then president; and that the disputed premises had thereafter continued vacant and unoccupied until the date of the quitclaim deed to the petitioners. Albert Brown, one of the petitioners, also testified that he had deposited, soon after receiving his deed, and in 1870, about two loads of building stone upon the premises, which still remained there, and that he had caused a fence to be put up on two angles of the lot under advice of counsel, shortly before filing his petition and that he had at the same time ordered a fence, put up by some one else on the premises, to be removed. He also testified, that a year or more after the date of his deed he had driven piles upon a part of the premises claimed by the respondent; but it appeared upon cross-examination that the land where the piles were driven had been conveyed by him to one McNeil before the filing of the petition, and was not included in the estate therein described. He also testified that he had paid the taxes on the disputed premises from the time of his alleged purchase.

The respondent testified, that on November 5, 1872, he had caused a written notice to be served on McNeil and others to desist from driving piles, or otherwise trespassing on the premises claimed by him under the Ralston deeds; and that on November 7, 1872, he caused a fence to be put...