Collins v. Cabral
| Decision Date | 01 April 1965 |
| Citation | 348 Mass. 797,206 N.E.2d 84 |
| Parties | Henry A. COLLINS et al. v. Joaquim CABRAL et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
David Entin, Fall River, for the defendants.
James W. Killoran, Fall River, for the plaintiffs.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, KIRK and REARDON, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The defendants appeal from a final decree enjoining them from entering upon a parcel of land (the locus) located in Somerset. The judge found that the plaintiffs had title to the locus through the adverse possession of their predecessors in title. The judge made findings of fact. The evidence is reported. The locus is of roughly triangular shape located between and contiguous to the property of the plaintiffs and the defendants, but separated from the defendants' land by a stone wall which has been in its present location for over forty-five years. There was evidence supporting the judge's findings of the following uses of the locus made by the plaintiffs' predecessors in title: Between 1939 and 1944 the land was used in a relatively undeveloped state for the growing of fruit and rhubarb which were harvested each year. The area was cleared of poison ivy, the grass was mowed, and a child of one of the plaintiffs' predecessors in title played there. From 1939 to 1962 the area was regularly used for picnics and a place to sit out. Some time around 1945, in conjunction with the construction of a house and garage on the plaintiff's land, a septic tank was installed in the locus and the area was filled, graded, and seeded. Thereafter it was used as part of the lawn of the house and was regularly maintained, at least until 1962. The requirements for acquisition of title by adverse possession are well established. LaChance v. First Natl. Bank & Trust Co., 301 Mass. 488, 17 N.E.2d 685; Shoer v. Daffe, 337 Mass, 420, 149 N.E.2d 625; Ottavia v. Saverese, 338 Mass. 330, 155 N.E.2d 432; Kershaw v. Zecchini, 342 Mass. 318, 173 N.E.2d 624. The facts found met those requirements.
Decree affirmed with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Gingras
...330 Mass. 374, 379--380 113 N.E.2d 861 (1953), Kershaw v. Zecchini, 342 Mass. 318, 319--321, 173 N.E.2d 624 (1961); Collins v. Cabral, 348 Mass. 797, 206 N.E.2d 84 (1965). Comtrast Cowden v. Cutting, 339 Mass. 164, 167--169, 158 N.E.2d 324 Final decree affirmed. 1 The appeal was taken on Ju......
-
Pugatch v. Stoloff
...330 Mass. 374, 380, 113 N.E.2d 861 (1953); Kershaw v. Zecchini, 342 Mass. 318, 320-321, 173 N.E.2d 624 (1961); Collins v. Cabral, 348 Mass. 797, 797-798, 206 N.E.2d 84 (1965); Shaw v. Solari, 8 Mass.App.Ct. 151, 157, 392 N.E.2d 853 (1979); Lebel v. Nelson, 29 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 301-302, 560 ......
-
First Cong. Church of Enosburg v. Manley
...use. See Dombkowski, 2006 ME 24, ¶¶ 4-7, 31, 893 A.2d 599 (mowing, clearing, driving, fencing and drilling a well); Collins v. Cabral, 348 Mass. 797, 206 N.E.2d 84, 85 (1965) (mowing, clearing land, using land for recreational activities, seeding ground, and constructing septic tank on disp......
-
Bennett v. Papetsas
...337 Mass. 420, 423-424, 149 N.E.2d 625 (1958). Boutin v. Perreault, 343 Mass. 329, 331-332, 178 N.E.2d 482 (1961). Collins v. Cabral, 348 Mass. 797, 798, 206 N.E.2d 84 (1965). Here even such a short step is unnecessary in view of the express finding that Bennett and his predecessors have cl......