McArthur v. Hood Rubber Co.

• Decision Date: 24 May 1915
• Parties: McARTHUR et al. v. HOOD RUBBER CO. et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

221 Mass. 372
109 N.E. 162

McARTHUR et al.
v.
HOOD RUBBER CO. et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

May 24, 1915.

Appeal from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Charles F. Jenney, Judge.

Suit by Andrew McArthur and others against the Hood Rubber Company and others. From a decree dismissing the bill of complaint as against certain defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed, and entered for plaintiffs.

Adams & [221 Mass. 374]Blinn, of Boston, for appellants.

RUGG, C. J.

This is a suit in equity brought to remove a cloud from and to quiet and establish the title to certain real estate of the plaintiffs in Watertown.

1. The first question presented is whether the superior court has jurisdiction of a suit of this sort. Proceedings to quiet title and to remove clouds from titles constitute a well-recognized branch of equity. Clouston v. Shearer, 99 Mass. 209;Frost v. Spitley, 121 U. S. 552, 556, 7 Sup. Ct. 1129, 30 L. Ed. 1010. By St. 1904, c. 448, exclusive and original jurisdiction was conferred on the land court both at law and in equity, among other matters, of ‘petitions to determine the validity of incumbrances under the provisions of sections eleven to fourteen, both inclusive, of’ R. L. c. 182. That statute does not deprive the superior court of the power to remove in equity clouds upon titles. First Congregational Society in East Longmeadow v. Metcalf, 193 Mass. 288, 79 N. E. 343,7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 481, 118 Am. St. Rep. 484,8 Ann. Cas. 1109. That subject is touched upon in R. L. c. 182, §§ 6 to 10, both inclusive, and the jurisdiction in the superior court in that regard has not been disturbed. The subsequent sections, 11 to 14, ‘enable parties to obtain the construction of the court in regard to questions arising under written instruments, and not to determine matters in pais. See Arnold v. Reed, 162 Mass. 438 [38 N. E. 1132];Blanchard v. Lowell, 177 Mass. 501 [59 N. E. 114].’ Crocker v. Cotting, 181 Mass 146, 153, 63 N. E. 402. The remedy afforded by these sections is not so comprehensive, adequate and complete as to exclude general equitable jurisdiction. R. L. c. 182, §§ 1 to 4, which confer power to order a party in proper instances to bring an action at law to try his title, has not limited the general authority of courts of equity. Smith v. Smith, 150 Mass. 73, 22 N. E. 437.

2. Some of the defendants have appeared and consented to the entry of a decree in favor of the plaintiffs. As to these no further question now is raised. The bill has been taken for confessed against numerous other...