Johnson v. Bean
| Decision Date | 04 January 1876 |
| Citation | 119 Mass. 271 |
| Parties | Nathaniel K. Johnson v. Ira G. Bean |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Argued January 28, 1875
Essex. Writ of entry to recover a parcel of land in Haverhill. Plea nul disseisin. At the trial in the Superior Court, Wilkinson J., ruled that the demandant could not maintain the action directed the jury to return a verdict for the tenant, and reported the case for the consideration of this court. So much of the case as is material to the point decided appears in the opinion.
Judgment on the verdict.
J. W Perry, for the demandant.
N. C. Berry, for the tenant.
Colt, J. Ames, J., absent. Endicott, J. did not sit.
The demandant claims title to the land in question as part of a lot conveyed to one Carlton by one Stowell, and by Carlton conveyed to him. At the time of each of these conveyances, the land demanded was separated from the rest of the land conveyed by a substantial fence extending across the rear of the lot; the tenant's dwelling-house was in fact located upon it; and there was no fence between it and the tenant's adjoining lot in the rear, but the whole was used as one house lot, then in the exclusive and actual occupation and possession of the tenant. This possession the case shows was adverse, and under a claim of title, it was open and notorious, and must be presumed to have been known to the rightful owner. If it had continued for a sufficient time, it would have ripened into a good title by presumption of grant. Samuels v. Borrowscale, 104 Mass. 207. Parker v. Proprietors of Locks & Canals, 3 Met. 91, 100. Boston & Worcester Railroad v. Sparhawk, 5 Met. 469.
The title which Stowell had in the premises was acquired, as it is claimed, by quitclaim deed from the tenant, and by the foreclosure of a mortgage while in his hands, which had been assigned to him. For the purposes of this case, we assume, without deciding, that these deeds and the deeds under which the demandant claims title include the demandant premises in their several descriptions. And yet the demandant fails to show title, because, at the time of the delivery of the deeds under which he claims, the grantors were disseised, and, by a familiar rule, no title passed.
It is no answer to this, that, at the time of the tenant's quitclaim deed to him, Stowell gave possession of the premises to him under an agreement of purchase; for the uncontradicted testimony in the case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holmes v. Turner's Falls Lumber Co.
...of the mortgage title," or the valid execution of a power of sale contained in a mortgage. Murphy v. Welch, 128 Mass. 489; Johnson v. Bean, 119 Mass. 271; Lincoln Emerson, 108 Mass. 87; Sheridan v. Welch, 8 Allen, 166; Hunt v. Hunt, 14 Pick. 374. The instructions of the presiding justice up......
-
Endicott v. Haviland
...the date of the writ. Pub. St. c. 173, § 32, c. 196, § 1, R. L. c. 179, § 2; Id. c. 202, §§ 20, 22; Brown v. King, 5 Metc. 173; Johnson v. Bean, 119 Mass. 271; Bigelow Carpet Co. v. Wiggin, 209 Mass. 542, 95 938; Melvin v. Proprietors of Locks & Canals, 5 Metc. 15, 38 Am. Dec. 384. The dema......
-
Holloran v. Holloran
...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 Borrowscale, 104 Mass. 207. The deeds of neither party refer to the Mason plan, or the stone bound, or the fence on Walnut ......
- Simpson v. Davis