Pickering v. Reynolds

• Decision Date: 04 November 1875
• Citation: 119 Mass. 111
• Parties: William Pickering, Jr. v. James Reynolds, Jr
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

119 Mass. 111

William Pickering, Jr. v. James Reynolds, Jr

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

November 4, 1875

Essex. Writ of entry, dated December 8, 1868, to recover land in Danvers. Plea, nul disseisin. Trial in the Superior Court before Brigham, C. J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:

The demandant put in evidence the levy of an execution, amended by leave of court and ruled to be sufficient, upon the premises described in his writ, said execution having been issued upon a judgment in an action in which said premises were duly attached on September 24, 1867, as the property of James Reynolds, Sen., and duly set off to the demandant upon said execution on February 22, 1868.

The demandant also put in the deed of Gilbert A. Tapley to James Reynolds, produced by the tenant upon the call of the demandant, and called Tapley as a witness, who testified that he executed the deed, that Reynolds, Sen., paid him the consideration thereof, that he delivered the deed to him at the time of payment; that he saw Reynolds, Sen., upon the premises several times after the delivery of the deed, that he never saw nor spoke to the tenant about the land, and that the tenant was not present when the deed was delivered.

The demandant also offered evidence that Reynolds, Sen., dug a cellar upon the premises after the delivery of said deed; and also, as a part of his evidence in chief, offered the testimony of Frank Eveleth, who testified that he went with Reynolds, Sen., to the cellar, and afterward to the latter's house, where Reynolds, Sen., exhibited to him Tapley's deed of the demanded premises, and made certain declarations, which the judge excluded, without exception by the demandant. The declarations thus excluded were of the same character, and to the same effect, as declarations in relation to the demanded premises, again offered by the demandant in rebuttal of the tenant's case, as hereinafter stated. The demandant then rested his case.

The tenant then testified that he was the son of James Reynolds Sen., now deceased; that in the year 1862, being at the time sixteen years of age, he enlisted in the United States service, and while in said service on two or three occasions sent his father money; that his father received his money paid for enlisting; and was further allowed to testify, under the demandant's objection and exception, as follows "Some time after said purchase, father said he bought the land for me with money I sent home from the army, and calculated to...