Marshall v. Francis
| Decision Date | 14 September 1951 |
| Citation | 327 Mass. 702,100 N.E.2d 840 |
| Parties | MARSHALL et al. v. FRANCIS et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Henry F. Smith, Harwich, for petitioners.
R. H. Lee, Boston, and J. W. Mead, Orleans, for respondents.
Before QUA, C. J., and WILKINS, SPALDING, WILLIAMS and COUNIHAN, JJ.
In response to a petition under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 240, § 1, by Joseph P. and Arthur P. Francis, hereinafter called the respondents, the petitioners John L. and Mary M. Marshall, claiming as tenants by the entirety in fee simple, have brought the present petition for registration of nine parcels (A to I, inclusive) of land in Truro. The controversy here relates only to parcel 'F,' the respondents contending that the title to this parcel was in them. Finding that the title to this property was in the petitioners, the judge of the Land Court ordered that it be registered accordingly. From this decision the respondents appealed. G.L.(Ted.Ed.) c. 185, § 15; c. 231, § 96, § 142, as amended. The decision incorporates by reference the examiner's report and numerous exhibits, which we treat as part of the record. Humphrey v. Walker, 314 Mass. 552, 553, 50 N.E.2d 783. Since the case comes here by appeal and not by bill of exceptions, neither the evidence as a whole nor the substance of it is before us, and the decision, which purports to rest on 'all the evidence,' must stand unless error appears from an examination of the decision itself. Bacon v. Kenneson, 290 Mass. 14, 15, 194 N.E. 832; McCarthy v. Lane, 301 Mass. 125, 127, 16 N.E.2d 683; Humphrey v. Walker, 314 Mass. 552, 553, 50 N.E.2d 783.
There was no error.
Nothing would be gained by setting forth in detail the facts found by the trial judge. The respondents' claim rests on two propositions: namely, (1) that parcel 'F' lies within the area referred to by the judge as 'X,' and (2) that the respondents have good title to 'X.' In none of the various deeds purporting to convey title to 'X' is there any material discrepancy as to the descriptions of its boundaries, and the respondents do not suggest any inaccuracy in this respect. A basic question in the case was where 'X' should be located on the ground, and that in turn depended on what was meant by the references in the deeds to such monuments as the 'Great Hill,' the 'eel creek in the meadow,' and 'in the range between the first and second Great Lots.' The judge viewed the locus, and his finding that 'X' does not include 'F' is not inconsistent with the descriptions in the deeds, and cannot be disturbed. Whether, as the judge also found, the respondents failed to establish title to 'X' need not concern us, for even if they owned it they would still not have title to the disputed parcel, 'F.'
It appears that the examiner first appointed by the court to examine the title represented the petitioners herein in a companion case and the respondents objected to his acting as examiner. Another examiner was appointed and he based his report on the abstract prepared by the first examiner. The respondents urge that the report was 'poisoned at its source' because it was based on an abstract made by an attorney representing an adverse interest. Doubtless it is contrary to the spirit of G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 185 and the letter of RULE 3 OF THE LAND COURT1 for examiners to report on title in cases in which they are acting as counsel for any party. The second examiner stated in his report that the petitioners had a good title to all nine parcels including 'F.' Although it appeared that the second examiner made use of the material prepared by the first examiner, the report does not clearly indicate, and it is not to be assumed, that he did not exercise his own independent judgment in making his report. Moreover, the respondents have failed to show that the report of the second examiner was erroneous. They complain that the abstract included in the report omits reference to certain deeds; but these deeds which were in evidence and are before us had no legitimate bearing on the issues here involved and were rightly omitted from the abstract. If there was any error in the report in omitting reference to these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Norwood v. Norwood Civic Ass'n
...See also McCarthy v. Lane, 301 Mass. 125, 127, 16 N.E.2d 683; Humphrey v. Walker, 314 Mass. 552, 553, 50 N.E.2d 783; Marshall v. Francis, 327 Mass. 702, 703, 100 N.E.2d 840. Cf. as to matters within the Land Court's concurrent equity jurisdiction, Cowden v. Cutting, 339 Mass. ----, 158 N.E.......
-
Pioneer Insulation & Modernizing Corp. v. City of Lynn
...exhibit in the present case and were incorporated by reference by the judge of the Land Court in his decision. See Marshall v. Francis, 327 Mass. 702, 703, 100 N.E.2d 840. Touching the question of discontinuance the judge in the equity case found and ruled as follows: 'I find further that f......
-
Rothery v. MacDonald
...to in the findings, but there is no report of the testimony. The findings of fact contained in the decision must stand. Marshall v. Francis, 327 Mass. 702, 100 N.E.2d 840, and cases The judge found in substance that the deed under which the petitioners claim and the deed under which the res......
-
Nessralla v. Mucci
...not before us. '(T)he decision * * * must stand unless error appears from an examination of the decision itself.' Marshall v. Francis, 327 Mass. 702, 703, 100 N.E.2d 840, 841; Holcombe v. Hopkins, 314 Mass. 113, 116, 49 N.E.2d 722; Humphrey v. Walker, 314 Mass. 552, 553, 50 N.E.2d 783; Harr......