Skinner v. Shepard
| Decision Date | 06 January 1881 |
| Citation | 130 Mass. 180 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | James Skinner & another v. Andrew N. Shepard & others |
Argued November 11, 1880; November 12, 1880
Suffolk. Contract for breach of the covenants in a deed of land in Woburn from the defendants to the plaintiffs. Trial in this court, before Lord, J., who reported the case before verdict for the determination of the full court. The facts appear in the opinion.
Judgment for the defendants.
S. B Ives, Jr. & G. W. Morse, for the plaintiffs.
T. H Sweetser, (J. P. Gale with him,) for the defendants.
On April 16, 1859, Willis Bucknam, now deceased, conveyed the land in question to Harris Munroe and others by a deed, which bounded it on one side by Green Street and on another side by the Woburn Branch Railroad, and which, after the description and before the habendum, contained this provision: "Said premises are hereby conveyed subject to the condition that no building shall ever be placed on that part of the same lying within twenty-five feet of said Green Street, and also that the present occupant of a part of the premises near said railroad for a lumber-yard shall be allowed the time until the first day of October next after the date hereof to remove his lumber and evacuate the premises, but no longer without the consent of said grantees." The land by mesne conveyances came into the possession of the defendants, who conveyed it to the plaintiffs by a warranty deed containing the usual covenants.
The words in the deed of Bucknam, above quoted, are sufficient to create a condition, the breach of which would forfeit the estate, if such clearly appears to have been the intention of the grantor; but they are not to have that effect, if his intention from the whole deed appears to have been otherwise.
We think that the last clause of the conditional paragraph could not have been intended as a technical condition. It relates merely to an occupation of a part of the premises for a short time, and is in its nature a personal stipulation of the grantees to permit such occupation, rather than a condition by a breach of which the estate should be wholly forfeited. The words "subject to the condition" apply equally to both clauses of the paragraph, and there is no reason for giving them a more technical or a different meaning when applied to the first clause than that which they have as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clapp v. Wilder
...they may be considered restrictions, especially if one of them be of such a nature as to be regarded as a personal stipulation. Skinner v. Shepard, 130 Mass. 180; Ayling v. Kramer, 133 Mass. 12. So, also, a deed reciting that the premises are conveyed subject to a condition contained in a p......
-
Doerr v. Cobbs
...inured to their benefit. McNichol v. Townsend, 67 A. 938; Sharp v. Ropes, 110 Mass. 381; Dana v. Wentworth, 111 Mass. 291; Skinner v. Shepherd, 130 Mass. 180; Beals v. Case, 130 Mass. 140; Badger Boardman, 16 Gray (Mass.) 559; Meriwether v. Joy, 85 Mo.App. 634; Sanders v. Nixon, 114 Mo.App.......
-
Mickleson v. Gypsy Oil Co.
...Greene v. O'Connor, 18 R.I. 56, 25 A. 692, 19 A. L. R. 262; Woodruff v. Woodruff, 44 N. J. Eq. 349, 16 A. 4, 1 L. R. A. 380; Skinner v. Shepard, 130 Mass. 180; Executor v. Ryan, 63 Vt. 227, 22 A. 574; Wier v. Simmons, 55 Wis. 637, 13 N.W. 873; Doescher v. Spratt, 61 Minn. 326, 63 N.W. 736; ......
-
Mickleson v. Gypsy Oil Co.
...Wilkinson, supra; Cassidy v. Mason (Mass.) 50 N.E. 1027; Greene v. O'Connor (R. I.) 25 A. 692; Woodruff v. Woodruff, 16 A. 4; Skinner v. Shepard, 130 Mass. 180; Palmer's Executor v. Ryan (Vt.) 22 A. 574; Weir v. Simmons (Wis.) 13 N.W. 873; Doescher v. Doescher (Minn.) 63 N.W. 736; Boston Sa......