Dudley v. Varney

Decision Date08 October 1956
Citation152 Me. 164,126 A.2d 285
PartiesLeona DUDLEY and Lawrence Brown v. Maude H. VARNEY, Eleanor R. Varney, and Robert D. Varney.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

Wheeler, Tansey & Campbell, Childs & McKinley, Portland, for plaintiffs.

John E. Hanscomb, Portland, for defendants.

Before FELLOWS, C. J., WILLIAMSON, WEBBER, BELIVEAU and TAPLEY, JJ., and MURRAY, A. R. J.

BELIVEAU, Justice.

On exceptions. This is a writ of entry brought by the plaintiffs to establish title in them to the real estate described in the writ.

The declaration consists of two counts. The first count alleges title in the plaintiffs and the second is for damages caused by cutting a large quantity of timber on the premises.

At the June 1955 Term of Cumberland County Superior Court, by argeement, the case was referred, with right reserved to except as to matters of law. The case was heard by a referee who found for the plaintiffs against all defendants on the first count and against the defendants, Maude H. Varney and Robert D. Varney on the second count.

The defendants filed, in writing, exceptions to the acceptance of the referee's report. This report was accepted by the Justice presiding at the February 1956 Term of the Cumberland County Superior Court and exception taken by the defendants to that ruling.

The plaintiffs acquired title to this property from Willard Brown, John Brown and Susan E. Chick, only heirs at law of Mary E. Brown, by quitclaim deed, dated June 17, 1952. Mary E. Brown's title to these premises is evidenced by a warranty deed, dated April 13, 1925, and duly recorded.

May v. Labbe, 112 Me. 209, 91 A. 929, reaffirmed the well-known rule of law that 'a warranty deed to one from whom the plaintiff has a quitclaim deed, is sufficient prima facie evidence of title in the plaintiff to authorize a verdict in his favor, unless the defendant proves a better title.' That being the rule, the plaintiffs made out a prima facie case which must stand unless the evidence shows the defendants to have the better title.

The defendants attempted to prove that title in this real estate was in Maude Henry Varney by virtue of quitclaim deed from Charles Giles to Maude H. Varney, dated July 21, 1941 and recorded on February 1, 1955.

Giles is alleged to have acquired title by a quitclaim deed from the town of Standish, dated March 2, 1940 and recorded in the Registry of Deeds July 13, 1953. The town of Standish's claim to the title is a tax collector's deed, dated February 16, 1932 and recorded in the Registry of Deeds, October 13, 1936.

It necessarily follows that title in one of the defendants, Maude H. Varney, is based on the tax assessment made on these premises prior to the deed from the tax collector to the selectmen of Standish.

The law as it existed then, Section 79, Chapter 14, Revised Statutes of Maine 1930, required that the tax collector, as part of the sale, 'shall, within thirty days after such sale make a return, with a particular statement of his doings in making such sale,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Sargent v. Coolidge
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 4 d3 Abril d3 1979
    ...quitclaim deed claimant either had obtained his title by warranty deed or was actually in possession of the land. See Dudley v. Varney, 152 Me. 164, 126 A.2d 285 (1956); Rand v. Skillin, 63 Me. 103 (1873); Tebbetts v. Estes, 52 Me. 566 In the instant case, the deeds from Mrs. Coolidge to th......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT