Curtis v. Goodwin
| Decision Date | 02 April 1919 |
| Citation | 122 N.E. 711,232 Mass. 538 |
| Parties | CURTIS v. GOODWIN et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Land Court, Essex County; Joseph J. Corbett, Judge.
Petition to register title to land by Greeley S. Curtis against Sophie B. Goodwin and others. There was decree for petitioner, and respondents except. Exceptions ordered overruled.
Luke B. Colbert, of Lynn, for petitioner.
Arthur T. Johnson, of Boston, and Moses S. Case, of Marblehead, for respondents.
This is a petition to register the title to two parcels of land situated in Marblehead. The land court entered a decree for the petitioner. The exceptions of the respondents relate only to parcel No. 1, the record title to which is in the petitioner.
The principal contention of the respondents is that Benjamin F. Goodwin, under whom the respondents claim, entered into possession of the locus under an oral agreement for the purchase thereof, that he performed his part of the contract more than twenty years prior to the filing of the petition for registration, and that he has acquired title by adverse possession. A sufficient answer to this contention is that the judge, who saw the witnesses and heard the vague testimony as to an alleged oral contract, has found in substance that Goodwin was not in possession under an agreement to purchase. That finding is conclusive on us, as we cannot say that there was no evidence to support it. Boston & Albany R. R. v. Reardon, 226 Mass. 286, 291, 115 N. E. 408.
It is not in dispute that Goodwin hired the land in question, or a portion of it, in 1870 from Isaac C. Wyman, taking a lease for a term of nine years from September 1st, with a privilege of renewal. The lessee was given the right to erect a dwelling house on the land, and to remove the same before the termination of the lease; and he agreed to repair the party fences and ditches, and to pay all taxes and assessments during the term and for such further time as he might hold the premises. It is elementary that a possession which will constitute a disseisin of the true owner must be not only open and notorious, but adverse, ‘with an intention to appropriate and hold the same as owner, and to the exclusion, rightfully or wrongfully, of every one else.’ Bond v. O'Gara, 177 Mass. 139, 144, 58 N. E. 275, 276 (83 Am. St. Rep. 265);Duff v. Leary, 146 Mass. 533, 16 N. E. 417. The judge has found that the relation of landlord and tenant did not cease, and that the possession of Goodwin was not hostile to but was in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New York Cent. R. Co. v. Cent. New England Ry. Co.
...present case. See Morse v. Goddard, 13 Metc. (54 Mass.) 117, 179,46 Am. Dec. 728;Gage v. Campbell, 131 Mass. 566; and Curtis v. Goodwin, 232 Mass. 538, 541, 122 N. E. 711. [16] The third paragraph of the agreement between the parties provided that the Boston & Albany Railroad Company should......
-
Air Plum Island v. Society for Preservation
...compliance with the lease. We agree. Use or occupancy in accordance with a lease precludes adverse possession. See Curtis v. Goodwin, 232 Mass. 538, 540, 122 N.E. 711 (1919). API's rationale in support of adverse possession is that the sketch appended to the lease describes area immediately......
-
York Central Railroad Co. v. Central New England Railway Co.
... ... present case. See Morse v. Goddard, 13 Met. 177, 179, ... Gage v. Campbell, 131 Mass. 566 , and Curtis v ... Goodwin, 232 Mass. 538, 541 ... The third paragraph ... of the agreement between the parties provided that the Boston ... ...
-
Ottavia v. Savarese
...to the exclusion, right or wrongfully, of every one else.' Bond v. O'Gara, 177 Mass. 139, 143-144, 58 N.E. 275, 276; Curtis v. Goodwin, 232 Mass. 538, 540, 122 N.E. 711; Town of Nantucket v. Mitchell, 271 Mass. 62, 68, 170 N.E. 807; Leavitt v. Elkin, 314 Mass. 396, 399, 49 N.E.2d 1020; Holm......