Hollingsworth & Vose Co. v. Recorder of Land Court
| Decision Date | 05 January 1928 |
| Citation | 159 N.E. 543,262 Mass. 45 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | HOLLINGSWORTH & VOSE CO. v. RECORDER OF LAND COURT. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.
Petition by the Hollingsworth & Vose Company for a writ of mandamus to compel the recorder of the land court to enter a decree registering petitioner's title to certain land. Petition ordered dismissed, and case reported for determination of the full Supreme Judicial Court, by a justice thereof. Order affirmed.David J. O'Connell, of Boston, for petitioner.
A. K. Reading, Atty. Gen., and G. J. Callahan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This is a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the recorder of the land court to enter a decree registering the title of the petitioner to certain land. The application for registration was filed in February, 1921. After hearing, the land court found that the petitioner had a title to the land proper for registration and ordered a decree confirming and registering the same in the name of the petitioner. When the application for registration was filed, the fees for registration were fixed by G. L. c. 262, § 39. Thereafter, but before the hearing in the land court, St. 1923, c. 374, was enacted and approved. Thereby a fee for ‘entry of a decree of registration and sending a memorandum to the assistant recorder’ was established. This was in addition to fees theretofore required and did not appear in any form in said section 39. The single question presented for decision is whether the recorder rightly can require of the petitioner the payment of this additional fee, or whether the petitioner is entitled to decree in its favor on payment of fees established at the time its application for registration was filed.
[1][2][3] Proceedings in the land court are judicial in nature. The fees established by statute for those proceedings relate entirely to procedure. The fees do not concern the merits of the title. The decision of the court as to the state of the title cannot be affected by the fees. Determination by the court as to the rights of the applicant in the land described has no relation whatever to the fees and is in no wise dependent upon them. The filing of the application for registration does not give rise to any contractual right in the applicant as against the commonwealth, or the court, or the recorder. The change wrought by St. 1923, c. 374, related wholly to the subject of fees to be paid for the registration of title to land in the land court. It does not affect the title to land. No vested right is disturbed. It is a legislative regulation of the terms upon which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeLeo v. Childs
...It does not "impair or touch substantive or vested rights" of the defendants, Hollingsworth and Vose Co. v. Recorder of the Land Court, 1928, 262 Mass. at 47, 159 N.E. at 544. Defendants had no vested, substantive right not to be sued in Massachusetts on their contract. See Nelson v. Miller......
-
Whiteside v. Merchants' Nat. Bank of Boston
...This is true even though no actual contest existed or develops as to the title of the petitioner. See Hollingsworth & Vose Co. v. Recorder of Land Court, 262 Mass. 45, 159 N. E. 543. A statute conferring power upon courts to determine the validity of certain incumbrances upon land has been ......
-
Malaguti v. Rosen
...Court of Registration, supra; G. L. c. 185, § 57. ‘Proceedings in the land court are judicial in nature.’ Hollingsworth & Vose Co. v. Recorder of the Land Court (Mass.) 159 N. E. 543. The purpose of registration law is to bind the land and to quiet title to it. Registration is conclusive up......
-
West Boylston Mfg. Co. v. Bd. of Assessors of Easthampton
...not affect substantive rights. Devine's Case, 236 Mass. 588, 594,129 N. E. 414, and cases collected. Hollingsworth & Vose Co. v. Recorder of the Land Court, 262 Mass. 45, 159 N. E. 543. It is to be observed that the town is not by name a party to this proceeding. The board of assessors of t......