Keith v. Kennard
| Decision Date | 08 January 1916 |
| Citation | 222 Mass. 398,110 N.E. 1030 |
| Parties | KEITH et al. v. KENNARD. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Land Court, Plymouth County; C. T. Davis, Judge.
Petition by Eben S. S. Keith and others against John Kennard for the registration of title to land. From a finding of title proper for registration, the defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.
J. E. Norton Shaw, of New Bedford (Albert B. Collins, of New Bedford, of counsel), for petitioners.
Edwin C. Jenney and Henry P. Herr, both of Boston, for respondent.
[2] The petitioner, to establish his right to registration, relied on title by prescription as well as by grant. The proof of title by grant required an examination of ancient records, surveys and plans covering more than two centuries; and in the first request the respondent contended that ‘the petitioners have failed to establish that they are owners in fee of the property described in the petition. * * * ’ It was refused, and in so far as title by grant is involved the questions raised by the refusal would compel a lengthy review of the evidence; portions of which were admitted subject to his exceptions. But as thus applied it is unnecessary to determine the correctness of this ruling, for reasons presently to be stated. A title gained by prescription would pass by deed, and for the purposes of registration it cannot be distinguished from title by grant. R. L. c. 128, § 1; Butler v. Atty. Gen., 195 Mass. 79, 80 N. E. 688;First Nat. Bank of Woburn v. Woburn, 192 Mass. 220, 78 N. E. 307. The record states that it appeared in evidence and the court found as a fact that on June 8, 1852, by a duly recorded deed, the land in question was conveyed by one Gibbs to Josiah Folger under which by mesne conveyances the petitioners claimed ownership. While it is further found that Gibbs did not have ‘full record title at the date of the conveyance,’ the evidence plainly shows that one Burgess, a predecessor of the petitioners, who obtained title in 1867 went upon the land in that year and also in 1868; cut the timber from both sides and all the timber from the narrow portion of ‘Oliver's Neck,’ the designation by which the tract in dispute has been known from colonial times. The cutting took place in the presence of one Miller and one Tisdale,under each of whom the respondent alleges title. It was further shown that Burgess built a sledge road through the neck, kept the underbrush cut; and when in 187...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
La Chance v. Rubashe
...by adverse possession. Cohasset v. Moors, 204 Mass. 173, 90 N.E. 978;Enfield v. Woods, 212 Mass. 547, 99 N.E. 331;Keith v. Kennard, 222 Mass. 398, 110 N.E. 1030, L.R.A.1916D, 3;Barker v. Kennard, 226 Mass. 586, 116 N.E. 391;Dow v. Dow, 243 Mass. 587, 137 N.E. 746;Grinuk v. Chapin National B......
-
Kozdras v. Land/Vest Properties, Inc.
...242, 107 N.E.2d 432 (1952). Hurlbut Rogers Mach. Co. v. Boston & Maine R.R., 235 Mass. 402, 126 N.E. 789 (1920). See Keith v. Kennard, 222 Mass. 398, 110 N.E. 1030 (1916) (upholding registration of title gained by The court suggests that the Kozdrases "rel(ied) on the integrity of the submi......
-
Cowden v. Cutting
...woodland that has always been open and unenclosed'). Bates v. Town of Cohasset, 280 Mass. 142, 153, 182 N.E. 284. Compare Keith v. Kennard, 222 Mass. 398, 110 N.E. 1030, L.R.A.1916D, 3, and Phipps v. Crowell, 224 Mass. 342, 112 N.E. 648, where fences were built across the necks of promontor......
-
Shaw v. Solari
...possession of the whole strip was exclusive and indicative of a claim by them of ownership of the entire locus. See Keith v. Kennard, 222 Mass. 398, 400, 110 N.E. 1030 (1916); Phipps v. Crowell, 224 Mass. 342, 343, 112 N.E. 648 (1916); LaChance v. First Natl. Bank and Trust Co., supra; Kers......