Fuller v. Fuller

• Decision Date: 27 November 1917
• Citation: 117 N.E. 838,228 Mass. 441
• Parties: FULLER v. FULLER.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

228 Mass. 441

117 N.E. 838

FULLER

v.FULLER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

Nov. 27, 1917.

Appeal from Supreme Judicial Court, Norfolk County.

Bill in equity by Charles H. Fuller against Clarence E. Fuller to quiet title to land. The case was referred to a master, who found in plaintiff's favor, and in the Supreme Judicial Court an interlocutory decree was entered, confirming the master's report, but not saying that exceptions to it were overruled. From the final decree, defendant appeals. Decree ordered affirmed.

Clarence E. Fuller, pro se.

Charles E. Haywood, of Boston, for appellee.

BRALEY, J.

The interlocutory decree confirming the report should have recited that the exceptions to the report were overruled, but the omission is of no material consequence as exceptions do not lie to a master's refusal to make findings of fact as requested. The report having been confirmed the motion to recommit although not appearing by the record to have been formally disposed of was necessarily denied by the interlocutory decree, and the only question for decision is whether the final decree from which the defendant appealed is in accordance with the master's report and the pleadings. The defendant claims title to the land described in the bill, under a sale for nonpayment of taxes which the plaintiff alleges is invalid, and the tax deed having been recorded it is a cloud upon his title.

The evidence is not reported, and the master's findings on all questions of fact are conclusive. It appears from the report that at the date of the filing the bill the plaintiff was seised of the premises under a conveyance from his mother, who derived title under the will of her husband, duly admitted to probate, and it is expressly found that since June 21, 1913, he has been in possession and control of the property. It is plain without further discussion that he can maintain the suit for the purpose of clearing the title. The defendant contends that the plaintiff has been guilty of such unconscionable conduct as to deprive him of any standing in a court of equity. But it is unnecessary to recite the master's findings which show not only the plaintiff's good faith, but such conduct of the defendant as to raise doubts whether he did not deliberately attempt to overreach his mother, brother and sisters in the settlement of the estate.

[7] It is further found on ample facts that the defendant's next contention, that the plaintiff acquired title through fraud and undue influence practiced upon his mother, is without foundation, and whether her deed to the plaintiff was in...