Davis v. City of Boston
| Decision Date | 10 September 1880 |
| Citation | 129 Mass. 377 |
| Parties | Nathaniel Davis v. City of Boston |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Suffolk. Bill in equity, filed June 20, 1879, to quiet the plaintiff's title to land in Boston. At the hearing before Ames, J., the following facts appeared:
On July 1, 1871, Nathaniel Winsor, then the owner of a wharf, in Boston, mortgaged the same by deed of that date, duly recorded, to Francis Curtis and others, for $ 95,000; and, on January 1, 1875, he made a second mortgage of the same estate, by deed duly recorded, to the plaintiff, for $ 30,000. On August 17, 1875, Winsor, by an indenture duly recorded on December 15, 1875, conveyed to Edward S. Tobey and others, trustees, in trust for his creditors, all his real estate, including the said wharf, subject to the above-named mortgages. On May 1, 1876, the assessors of the defendant city assessed to Nathaniel Winsor the sum of $ 1873.25, as a tax on the said wharf, at a valuation of $ 147,500. The trustees were at the time of this assessment the record owners of the estate, and, by their consent, the first mortgagees were in possession, taking the rents and profits thereof. On May 21, 1877, after a breach of the condition of the second mortgage, the plaintiff duly entered upon said estate and took peaceable possession thereof, for the purpose of foreclosing his mortgage. The certificate of his entry dated May 21, 1877, was duly recorded within the time prescribed by law, and on May 21, 1877, under the power of sale contained in his mortgage, he duly sold and conveyed said estate, by deed, duly recorded with affidavit of sale to Joshua N. Marshall, who, on May 31, reconveyed the estate to the plaintiff by deed dated and recorded the same day; and the latter has ever since been in possession of the estate as the owner thereof. In the above transactions, Marshall acted merely as a conduit for the purpose of effecting a foreclosure; and the plaintiff, by said foreclosure, obtained a valid title to the estate, and became the legal owner thereof. On July 11, 1877, the assessors of Boston, by a reassessment, assessed to Edward S. Tobey and others trustees, as a tax for the year 1876, upon said estate, the sum of $ 1587.50, at a valuation of $ 125,000. On August 29, 1878, the collector of taxes sold said estate for non-payment of the above tax, so reassessed; and, on September 23, 1878, by deed duly recorded, conveyed the estate to the city. All the above proceedings were proper in form. No proceedings were ever had or commenced by the city to enforce the collection of the tax assessed to Winsor, or to preserve or enforce the lien, if any, therefor.
Upon these facts, the judge ordered the collector's deed to the defendant to be set aside, as constituting a cloud upon the plaintiff's title; and that the defendant convey to the plaintiff all right, title and interest in the estate which it acquired under said deed. The defendant appealed to the full court.
Decree affirmed.
J. N. Marshall & M. L. Hamblet, for the plaintiff.
H. B. Sargent, Jr., for the defendant.
OPINION
On May 1, 1876, Curtis and others, the first mortgagees of the land described in the plaintiff's bill, were the only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Assessors of Boston v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.
...upon the local records and not upon any effect those proceedings had in themselves as notice to all the world.1 The cases of Davis v. City of Boston, 129 Mass. 377, and Tucker v. Deshon, 129 Mass. 559, 566, 567, were both decided before the enactment of St.1881, c. 304, § 3, which for the f......
-
Jones v. Nixon
...Spitley, 121 U.S. 556, 7 S.Ct. 1129; Orton v. Smith, 18 How. 265; Dick v. Foraker, 155 U.S. 414, 415, 15 S.Ct. 124; Davis v. City of Boston, 129 Mass. 377; Smith v. Sherry, 54 114, 11 N.W. 465; King v. Coleman, 98 Tenn. 570, 40 S.W. 1082; Wilcox v. Blackwell, 99 Tenn. 352, 41 S.W. 1061. An ......
-
McCartin Leisure Industries, Inc. v. Baker
...property so as to avoid dismissal for lack of standing, a claim of rightful legal ownership satisfies these requirements. Cf. Davis v. Boston, 129 Mass. 377 (1880); Sullivan v. Finnegan, 101 Mass. 447 (1869); Jones v. Gingras, 3 Mass.App. ---, ---b 331 N.E.2d 819 (1975). We note further tha......
-
Foley v. City of Haverhill
...50. Or, after sale of his premises under the assessment, may, if in possession, maintain a bill in equity to quiet his title. Davis v. Boston, 129 Mass. 377. The position of this plaintiff who paid her assessment to prevent the sale of her premises must be as good as the position of a perso......