Jenney v. Tilden

• Decision Date: 20 January 1930
• Citation: Jenney v. Tilden, 270 Mass. 92, 169 N.E. 669 (Mass. 1930)
• Parties: JENNEY v. TILDEN.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

270 Mass. 92

169 N.E. 669

JENNEY

v.TILDEN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Jan. 20, 1930.

Appeal from Land Court, Suffolk County; C. T. Davis, Judge.

Petition by Edwin C. Jenney, trustee, to foreclose a tax title, opposed by Henry R. Tilden, trustee, and another. From a decision in favor of respondent Tilden, petitioner appeals. Affirmed.

M. R. Pihl, of Boston, for appellant.

CROSBY, J.

This is a petition to foreclose a tax title in accordance with the provisions of G. L. c. 60, §§ 64-74. The respondent Tilden (herein called the respondent) filed an appearance, and in his answer alleged that by virtue of a deed duly recorded from one Margaret E. Nichols, one of the respondents, he is ‘the owner of the land which is sought to be foreclosed, * * * that Margaret E. Nichols never had any notice of the pendency of this action,’ and that he as grantee under said deed wishes to redeem upon such terms as may be determined by the court. A hearing was held by a judge of the land court, who decided in favor of the respondent, and the case is before this court on appeal by the petitioner.

The petition alleges that the land in question was sold on April 29, 1925, for nonpayment of taxes by the city of Boston ‘by instrument duly recorded on May 15, 1925,’ and that the petitioner holds title under said instrument. No question appears to have been raised respecting the petitioner's title, but apparently, from the decision of the land court, only the right of the respondent to redeem was in issue. No finding of the judge contains reference to the petitioner's title, but the case is treated on the assumption that the allegations in the petition are true, that two years have elapsed between the tax sale and the bringing of the petition, and that all proceedings in reference to the acquisition of the tax title by the petitioner were valid.

The judge made the following findings: Title to the land in question was in one Wilson, who died in 1900, testate, devising all his real estate in trust. In 1915 the surviving executor under the Wilson will sold the land under license of the probate court to one Patterson, who was a straw man for the Wilson estate. In 1917 the land was sold to one Chadwick for nonpayment of taxes assessed to the trustees of the Wilson estate. In 1918 the land was again sold to Chadwick for nonpayment of taxes assessed to Patterson. In April, 1919, Chadwick released all his interest under both tax titles to one Nichols, a straw man for the Wilson estate. In 1919 the surviving trustee of the Wilson estate, acting under a license from the probate court for the purpose of terminating the trust, conveyed to one Yuill, by deed in which various beneficiaries under the Wilson will joined. The next day Yuill conveyed all right and interest in the land to Nichols. In 1928 Nichols conveyed to the respondent, who is trustee under a trust indenture having nothing to do with the Wilson estate. There is no conveyance from Patterson; he is now deceased. On these findings the judge allowed the respondent to redeem on or before July 29, 1929, on payment to the petitioner of $176.55, an amount found to be sufficient to cover the original sum, costs, interest and other amounts to which the petitioner would be entitled under G. L. c. 60, § 68, including a reasonable counsel fee.

There is nothing in the record to show specifically what title the petitioner claims to have in the land. Although the petition recites that it was sold on April 29, 1925, for nonpayment of...