Haynes v. Boardman
| Decision Date | 08 January 1876 |
| Citation | 119 Mass. 414 |
| Parties | Thomas G. Haynes v. Benjamin G. Boardman |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Argued November 4, 1875
Essex. Writ of entry, dated November 12, 1870, to recover a parcel of land in Haverhill. Plea, nul disseisin. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Allen, J., the jury found for the demandant; and the tenant alleged exceptions, the substance of which appears in the opinion.
Exceptions overruled.
J. W Perry & L. S. Tuckerman, for the tenant.
S. B Ives, Jr., for the demandant.
Colt J. Morton & Lord, JJ., absent. Endicate, J., did not sit.
There was evidence tending to show adverse possession of the demanded premises, commencing with the occupation of Mrs Atwood in 1832, and continued until her death in 1847. She devised all her real estate to Susanna Gage for her life, remainder in fee to the demandant. The possession was continued in Susanna until her death in 1863, and by the demandant until shortly before the commencement of this action. The principal question is whether there was that privity of estate between the testatrix and her devisees which is required to establish title by continuous adverse possession.
It is settled that the disseisin of an heir, devisee or grantee may be tacked to that of an ancestor, devisor or grantor, to create title by adverse possession. Leonard v. Leonard, 7 Allen 277. Melvin v. Proprietors of Locks & Canals, 5 Met. 15, 32. Such adverse possession, continued for twenty years, affords a conclusive presumption of grant to the first occupant.
It is claimed that there is no such privity between the life tenant and the remainderman, because the latter in no sense claims under the former. But the answer is, that both claim under the same will by one title. The disseisin, which was commenced by the testatrix, is continued by each in accordance with that title, and is referred by each only to the entry of the testatrix. There has been no loss of possession; no restoration of the seisin to the true owner; no new entry. The disseisin which commenced with the testatrix has been continuous in her devisees, and establishes her title by lapse of time. It is plainly distinguished from a case of successive entries and new decisions by different and independent parties.
It does not follow, because no act of the life tenant in disparagement of his title, and no disseisin of him, will be permitted to injure the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fieldhouse v. Leisburg
... ... Romine (Neb.), 82 N.W. 318; Lantry v. Wold, 40 ... Neb. 374; McNeely v. Langan, 22 Ohio St. 32; ... Stattnische v. Lamb, 18 Neb. 619; Haynes v ... Boardman, 119 Mass. 414; Witt v. Ry. Co., 38 ... Minn. 122; Low v. Schaffer, 24 Ore. 239; Meyer ... v. Hope, 10 Wis. 123; Bradstreet v ... ...
-
Ill. Steel Co. v. Budzisz
...from vendor to vendee. 1 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) 842, and cases cited in the notes; McNeely v. Langan, 22 Ohio St. 32;Haynes v. Boardman, 119 Mass. 414;Witt v. Railway Co., 38 Minn. 122, 35 N. W. 862;Low v. Schaffer, 24 Or. 239, 33 Pac. 678;Vance v. Wood, 22 Or. 77, 29 Pac. 73;Crispen ......
-
Ray v. Farrow
...authorities collected in 2 C.J. p. 51, § 2. It may not be necessary to further speak of the tacking possession. However, in Haynes v. Boardman, 119 Mass. 414, 415, the court said of the privity in estate and the possession of the life tenant for the remainderman: "It is claimed that there i......
-
Hickman v. Link
...the testatrix, is continued by each in accordance with that title, and is referred by each only to the entry of the testatrix." Haynes v. Boardman, 119 Mass. 414. Ann McCourtney and the children of herself and her former husband hold by the same right. The disseizin which was commenced by A......