Holloran v. Holloran
| Decision Date | 11 May 1889 |
| Citation | 149 Mass. 298,21 N.E. 374 |
| Parties | HOLLORAN v. HOLLORAN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Stearns & Butler, for demandant.
E.A. Alger, for defendant.
The writ is dated March 15, 1888. The exceptions recite that "the demandant offered evidence tending to prove that about the year 1860 a fence was erected as a boundary line between said lots 3 and 4; that thereafter said fence existed more than twenty years continuously, and was once rebuilt by the owner of lot No. 3; that said fence was upon the line claimed by the demandant to be the true boundary line between said lots 3 and 4; and that from and after about 1860 the demanded premises had been used and occupied by her grantors and herself, owners of lot 4, for more than twenty years continuously, openly, adversely, and under a claim of right." This was evidence not only that the line of the fence was the true boundary line, but evidence of title in the plaintiff up to the line of the fence, acquired by adverse possession. Coyle v. Cleary, 116 Mass. 208; Johnson v. Bean, 119 Mass. 271, Samuels v. Borrowscale, 104 Mass. 207. The deeds of neither party refer to the Mason plan, or the stone bound, or the fence on Walnut street, and therefore these are not monuments, in the legal sense. The evidence concerning these was evidence for the jury, in connection with other evidence, upon the position of the original boundary line between the lots; and, whatever the position of that line was, or was found to be, there is nothing in the exceptions which should prevent the jury from finding that the demandant had acquired title by adverse possession up to the line of the fence, if they believed the evidence. The requests for rulings are somewhat obscure, but, as we understand them, they ought not to have been given; and no error is shown in the instructions given. Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bayhouse v. Urquides
......864; McNamara v. Seaton, 82 Ill. 498; Palmer v. Dosch, 148 Ind. 10, 47 N.E. 176; Kulas v. McHugh, 114 Iowa 188, 86. N.W. 288; Holloran v. Holloran, 149 Mass. 298, 21. N.E. 374; Tritt v. Hoover, 116 Mich. 4, 74 N.W. 177;. Sheets v. Sweeney, 136 Ill. 336, 26 N.E. 648; 5 Cyc. ......
-
Hurlbut Rogers Mach. Co. v. Boston & M.R.R.
...and was so found at the trial. It ordinarily would follow that the petitioner would be entitled to registration. Holloran v. Holloran, 149 Mass. 298, 21 N. E. 374;First Baptist Church of Sharon v. Harper, 191 Mass. 196, 208, 77 N. E. 778;Keith v. Kennard, 222 Mass. 398, 110 N. E. 1030, L. R......
-
Holmes v. Judge
......Brown , supra, is approved and followed. The following cases are all to the same effect: Palmer v. Dosch (Ind. Sup.), 47 N.E. 176; Holloran v. Holloran (Mass.), 21 N.E. 374. In the case of Miller. v. Mills County , 82 N.W. 1038, the Supreme Court of Iowa. makes a thorough review of ......
-
Battner v. Baker
...816; Levy v. Yorga, 25 Neb. 764; Obernathy v. Edgar, 44 N.W. 82; Canfield v. Clark, 21 P. 443; Erck v. Church, 11 S.W. 794; Holloran v. Holloran, 21 N.E. 374. (2) claimed the land as his own up to the fence for the statutory period, and the fact that he claimed up to the fence because he th......