Rahilly v. Addison

• Decision Date: 03 May 1966
• Citation: 216 N.E.2d 414,350 Mass. 660
• Parties: John P. RAHILLY et al. v. Amy F. ADDISON et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 414

216 N.E.2d 414

350 Mass. 660

John P. RAHILLY et al. v. Amy F. ADDISON et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued Feb. 10, 1966.

Decided May 3, 1966.

Mario Misci, Boston, for petitioners.

No argument or brief for respondents.

Before WILKINS, C.J., and WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, SPIEGEL, and REARDON, JJ.

REARDON, Justice.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Land Court in proceedings brought under G.L. c. 185 by substitute petitioners to register title to certain land in the town of Winthrop. The locus is a part of lot 27 on a plain of land formerly owned by one Tewksbury which is dated November, 1877. Tewksbury gave a deed to lot 27 to the petitioners' predecessor in title in 1884. The respondents are owners of various other lots and portions of lots delineated under the 1877 plan. In their answers to the petition they claimed that they held easements over a private way, Sargent Street, which formed the westerly boundary of the locus, and over a beach lying on the southerly part of the locus and bordering on Boston Harbor. At that hearing the various respondents agreed to withdraw 'all claim of prescriptive rights in, or adverse possession of,' the beach portion of the locus provided that the court found as a matter of record title serveral representative respondents had the right to use the beach, it being stipulated by the parties that such rights would be 'deemed appurtenant to each lot shown' on the 1877 plan, and that the decree on the petition would so state. Both the petitioners' deed to the locus and the deeds of each of the respondents contained language giving a right of way over Sargent and Beach streets as shown on the plan. The 1877 plan showed that Beach Street was parallel to, and close by, the shoreline and was crossed by Sargent Street, which proceeded toward the harbor and ended there.

The judge ruled that '(t)here was set forth in the deeds the right of persons to use the ways shown on the plan. One of the ways, Sargent Street, led to a public way and it also led to the beach area on Boston Harbor. The significance of * * * (this) appears to be that the original owner * * * in 1877 intended that * * * (the respondents' predecessors in title) were to have access to and the use of the beach area. This intention appears to be strengthened by the fact that the owner, if his intention was otherwise, would have ended Sargent Street at the southerly line of Beach Street.' The judge found that though there was 'no express mention of any right to use the beach,' appurtenant to the respondents' land were easements to use both Sargent Street and 'the beach area of the locus,' which he defined.

1. 'It is settled that appeals such as * * * (this) now before us bring before this court only questions of law apparent on the record, that findings of fact cannot be revised and must be accepted as true, and that, if upon all the facts thus displayed and the reasonable inferences of which they are susceptible, the ultimate finding is justified as matter of law, it must stand.' Holcombe v. Hopkins, 314 Mass. 113, 116, 49 N.E.2d 722, 723. Humphrey v. Walker, 314 Mass. 552, 553, 50 N.E.2d 783. SALMEME V. ANGUS, MASS., 212 N.E.2D 237;^A Nessralla v. Mucci, Mass., 216 N.E.2d 416. The petitioners contend that the question of the existence of the easements on both the private way and the beach is an issue of law only. We do not agree. ¹

The judge correctly stated that where land is conveyed with reference to a plan, an easement other than an easement of necessity is created only if clearly so intended by the parties to the deed. Regan v. Boston Gas Light Co., 137 Mass. 37, 43; Prentiss v. City of Gloucester, 236 Mass. 36, 52, 127 N.E. 796; Bacon v. Onset Bay Grove Ass'n., 241 Mass. 417, 423, 136 N.E. 813. Each such 'intended easement' depends on the deed and the circumstances in which it was made. Bacon v. Onset Bay Grove Ass'n., 241 Mass. 417, 423, 136 N.E. 813; Wellwood v. Havrah Mishna Anshi Sphard Cemetery Corp., 254 Mass. 350, 354--355, 150 N.E. 203; Mt. Holyoke Realty Corp. v. Holyoke Realty Corp., 284 Mass. 100, 104, 187 N.E. 227. See Goldstein v. Beal, 317 Mass. 750, 755, 59 N.E.2d 712.

2. The evidence in this case consisted of oral testimony and exhibits, including plans and deeds. A portion of the evidence heard concerned uses of the beach area by residents of the...