Hurlbut Rogers Machinery Co. v. Boston & Maine Railroad

• Decision Date: 01 April 1920
• Parties: HURLBUT ROGERS MACHINERY COMPANY v. BOSTON AND MAINE RAILROAD.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

235 Mass. 402

HURLBUT ROGERS MACHINERY COMPANY v. BOSTON AND MAINE RAILROAD.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

April 1, 1920

January 16, 1920.

Present: RUGG, C.

J., BRALEY CARROLL, & JENNEY, JJ.

Railroad. Easement.

The provisions of Sts. 1861, c. 100; 1874, c. 372, Section 107; Pub. Sts.

c. 112, Section 215; R.

L.c.111, Section 271; St. 1906, c. 463, Part II,

Section 80, prevent the acquiring, by the owner of land adjoining a railroad location, of a title by adverse possession to the whole or to any part of the location or to an easement therein of support for structures on the adjoining owner's land.

PETITION, filed in the Land Court on July 10, 1918, for the registration of the title to certain land in Sudbury.

The petition was heard by Davis, J. Material facts found by him are described in the opinion. As to the title to the "small triangular parcel" described in the opinion, the judge, upon "all of the facts . . . found that, if title by adverse possession could, as matter of law, be acquired by the petitioner and its predecessors, it had been so acquired; but ruled as matter of law that title could not be so acquired and ordered a decree accordingly." The petitioner alleged an exception.

H. A. Baker, for the petitioner. A. R. Tisdale, for the respondent.

BRALEY, J. The first question is, whether any portion of the land described in the petition for registration comes within the location of the respondent's railroad. If the boundary lines shown on the plan filed with the petition are the true boundaries, it is manifest that no part of the location is included. But the respondent contended and introduced evidence tending to show that the northerly line of the location ran through the extreme southwesterly corner of the land and buildings leaving a small triangular parcel and part of the chimney within the limits of the railroad location. The boundary being in controversy it was a question of fact on all the evidence, including the various surveys and plans, and the actual occupation and user by the parties, where the true line originally ran and was to be established in the ascertainment of the petitioner's title. Dodd v Witt, 139 Mass. 63 . Temple v. Benson, 213 Mass. 128 . Morrison v. Holder, 214 Mass. 366 , 368 369. Hobart v. Towle, 220 Mass. 293 . The adverse finding, that, under the grant appearing of record, the petitioner's land extended only to the northerly side line of the location, having been warranted by the evidence is conclusive. American Malting Co. v. Souther Brewing Co. 194 Mass. 89 . Boston & Albany Railroad v. Reardon, 226 Mass. 286, 291.

The petitioner however, having also claimed title by adverse possession, the next question is, whether on this ground registration could be decreed. The continuous, open, peaceable and unopposed use and occupation by the petitioner of the premises under claim of title for more than the prescribed period undoubtedly is shown by the record, and was found at the trial. It ordinarily would follow that the petitioner would be entitled to registration. Holloran v. Holloran, 149 Mass. 298 . First Baptist Church of Sharon v. Harper, 191 Mass. 196 , 208. Keith v. Kennard, 222 Mass. 398 . R.L.c. 128, Section 18, as amended by St. 1905, c. 249, Section 2. But the respondent while not claiming title by deed relies on a location acquired presumably under Gen. Sts. c. 63, Sections 17, 18, the validity of which is not questioned. The petitioner's deed although dated January 16, 1872, was not recorded until 1875, and the taking by the...