MacNeil Bros. Co. v. State Realty Co. of Boston
| Decision Date | 04 January 1956 |
| Citation | 131 N.E.2d 178,333 Mass. 770 |
| Parties | MacNEIL BROS. CO. v. STATE REALTY CO. OF BOSTON, Inc. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Angus M. MacNeil, Somerville, for plaintiff.
Philip Cowin, Boston, for defendant.
Before QUA, C. J., and WILKINS, SPALDING and WHITTEMORE, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
This bill in equity asks the Superior Court to remove a cloud on a title allegedly resulting from a mortgage 'that may possibly be now held by the defendant' and from the defendant's possession under it, and to enter a declaratory decree determining the effect of the mortgage on the property. The defendant's demurrer was rightly sustained. A bill will lie to remove a cloud on a title only if legal title and actual possession are united in the plaintiff. First Baptist Church of Sharon v. Harper, 191 Mass. 196, 209, 77 N.E. 778. Vitelli v. Ryder, 329 Mass. 119, 123, 106 N.E.2d 541. The only suggestion of matter in controversy between the parties, G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 231A, § 1, inserted by St.1945, c. 582, § 1, is in respect of the effect of a 'final decree * * * decreeing redemption' of the subject property, entered in the Superior Court in other litigation between the parties, and of a subsequent 'order' therein 'which apparently may have been an attempt to modify or change the final decree' and 'may have been entered by the court without right,' and also the effect of the plaintiff's alleged recording of that 'final decree' pursuant to G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 183, §§ 43 and 44, as amended. No actual controversy is stated and the possibility or probability is not negatived that whatever points are at issue are resolvable in due course of that other litigation on appeal or in the Superior Court. The bill does not contain a clear and precise statement of all the material facts adequate to inform the defendant and the court of the nature of the plaintiff's claim. Bressler v. Averbuck, 322 Mass. 139, 142, 76 N.E.2d 146.
Interlocutory decree sustaining demurrer affirmed.
Final decree affirmed with costs of the appeal.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Progressive Consumers Federal Credit Union v. U.S.
...a plaintiff must have both actual possession and legal title to maintain a quiet title action, see MacNeil Bros. Co. v. State Realty Co. of Boston, Inc., 333 Mass. 770, 131 N.E.2d 178 (1956 (citing cases)), and suggests that the contours of the state law cause of action should guide our int......
-
Cowden v. Cutting
...v. Harper, 191 Mass. 196, 209, 77 N.E. 778 780; Vitelli v. Ryder, 329 Mass. 119, 123, 106 N.E.2d 541; MacNeil Bros. Co. v. State Realty Co. of Boston, Inc., 333 Mass. 770, 131 N.E.2d 178) and found the necessary possession in the plaintiff. The evidence permitted this finding. The plaintiff......
-
Barrasso v. New Century Mortg. Corp.
...McCartin Leisure Indus., Inc. v. Baker, 376 Mass. 62, 66, 378 N.E.2d 980 (1978), quoting from MacNeil Bros. Co. v. State Realty Co. of Boston, 333 Mass. 770, 131 N.E.2d 178 (1956). Additionally, Massachusetts adheres to the "title theory" of mortgage law, which means that when real property......
-
State Realty Co. of Boston v. MacNeil Bros. Co.
...19, 1967.2 The following cases relating to this controversy have been decided by the full court:1. MacNeil Bros Co. v. State Realty Co. of Boston, Inc., 333 Mass. 770, 131 N.E.2d 178.2. State Realty Co. of Boston, Inc. v. MacNeil Bros. Co., 334 Mass. 294, 135 N.E.2d 291.3. State Realty Co. ......