McLoud v. MaCkie

• Decision Date: 01 March 1900
• Citation: 175 Mass. 355,56 N.E. 714
• Parties: McLOUD v. MACKIE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

175 Mass. 355

56 N.E. 714

McLOUD v. MACKIE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 1, 1900

COUNSEL

Lund & Welch, for plaintiff.

H. G Allen and N.M. Nye, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

The real estate in question was owned by John O. Bradford from the time of his purchase of it in 1862 until his death on October 17, 1897. It then passed by descent to his sons James O. Bradford and Edward T. Bradford. The bill of exceptions shows that the share of Edward was conveyed by a series of deeds duly acknowledged and recorded, the last of which is to Elizabeth B. Wheeler, and was dated and recorded April 18, 1895. On May 1st of that year the whole estate was taxed to her, and was subsequently sold for nonpayment of taxes, and the demandant has this tax title.

Pub St. c. 11, § 13, as amended by St. 1889, c. 84, reads in part as follows: 'For the purpose of assessing and collecting taxes on real estate, the person appearing in the records of the county where the real estate lies as the owner thereof on the first day of May, even if deceased, shall be held to be the True owner thereof.' St. 1888, c. 390, § 56, is in these words: 'Every sale or taking of real estate for payment of taxes shall be deemed to be in the name of the owner or owners thereof, if the proceedings of assessment sale or taking are made in the name of one or more of the persons who appear as record owners of such estate at the date of assessment; but any taking of real estate for payment of taxes shall be of the whole estate, and no sale or taking shall be of the undivided interest of any one or more of the joint owners thereof.' On May 1, 1895, Elizabeth B. Wheeler was the owner of the property, within the meaning of the statute, and the tax upon the whole estate was properly assessed to her; and the sale for nonpayment of taxes gave the demandant a good title to the whole, subject to redemption. The tenant in this case was a tenant in occupation of the premises, holding under the owner, from 1877 to July 1, 1884, and she paid rent therefor from March, 1879, to March, 1884. The only evidence on which she founds her claim to a different title since is that in June, 1885, the board of health condemned the premises and ordered the tenants to move out, which she did at once; that she afterwards put the premises in repair at her own expense, to the satisfaction of the board of health, and moved back, and has...