Warren v. Bowdran
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Writing for the Court | LATHROP |
| Citation | 31 N.E. 300,156 Mass. 280 |
| Parties | WARREN v. BOWDRAN. |
| Decision Date | 09 May 1892 |
WARREN
v.
BOWDRAN.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.
May 9, 1892.
Exceptions from superior court, Middlesex county; CALEB BLODGETT, Judge.
Action by one Warren against one Bowdran to recover land. Defendant had judgment, and plaintiff brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
[156 Mass. 284]
[31 N.E. 301]
C.H. Hudson, for plaintiff.
Charles J. McIntire, for defendant.
[156 Mass. 281]LATHROP, J.
This is a writ of entry, dated April 9, 1890, to recover a strip of land on Maple street, in Somerville. The demanded premises and the adjoining lands were in 1866 owned by one Hadley. In May of that year, Hadley conveyed to the tenant a lot of land on Maple street, which did not include the demanded premises. In May, 1868, Hadley conveyed to one Lane, the defendant's predecessor in title, a lot of land on Maple street, by a deed which described the land as bounded on one side by the land of the tenant, and on the opposite side by the land of one Connors. It was admitted that in 1868, and soon after the conveyance to Lane, the tenant built a fence extending from Maple street along the southeasterly line of the demanded premises to the boundary line in the rear, and thence along the rear line and the rear line of the land conveyed to him by Hadley. This fence was maintained by the tenant from that time until the bringing of the writ in this case,-a period of more than 20 years. There was evidence that, before Hadley conveyed to Lane, he pointed out to the tenant the line on which the fence was afterwards built. But this evidence was contradicted, and we must assume, for the purposes of this decision that by building the fence the tenant inclosed land which had been conveyed to Lane. At the time the fence was built, Lane was the owner and occupant of the land conveyed to him by Hadley, and he testified that he objected to the line upon which the tenant put the fence; that “there was a wordy dispute over the matter, but the tenant insisted, and put the fence on the line where it has ever since been maintained.” This testimony was uncontradicted. [156 Mass. 282]The jury returned a general verdict for the tenant, but found specially that, at the time the tenant built the fence, he did not honestly believe that, by the deed of Hadley, he acquired a title to the land up to the line of the fence.
The principal question which has been argued is that involved in the special finding of the jury, namely, whether the taking possession of another man's land, with intent to make it the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cahill v. Morrow, No. 2008-34-Appeal.
...claim in order to clear its title, and that this was after its possession had continued for more than five years."); Warren v. Bowdran, 156 Mass. 280, 31 N.E. 300, 301-02 (1892) ("[That] he was willing to pay something for the land to avoid litigation * * * and he made an offer for the land......
-
Cahill v. Morrow, No. 2008-34-Appeal.
...claim in order to clear its title, and that this was after its possession had continued for more than five years."); Warren v. Bowdran, 31 N.E. 300, 301-02 (Mass. 1892) ("[That] he was willing to pay something for the land to avoid litigation * * * and he made an offer for the land, that fa......
-
Robert v. Perron
...here. The use here did not begin by permission nor was it permissive within the meaning of those decisions. Warren v. Bowdran, 156 Mass. 280, 31 N. E. 300. The entry of an interlocutory decree confirming the report but omitting any reference to the exception, does not preclude the court fro......
-
Peck v. Bigelow, 92-P-426
...at 302, 560 N.E.2d 135, but the judge could find in the circumstances that it was probative of that proposition. See Warren v. Bowdran, 156 Mass. 280, 283, 31 N.E. 300 (1892). So also the judge could read the direct colloquy between the defendant and opposing counsel about the defendant's s......
-
Cahill v. Morrow, No. 2008-34-Appeal.
...claim in order to clear its title, and that this was after its possession had continued for more than five years."); Warren v. Bowdran, 156 Mass. 280, 31 N.E. 300, 301-02 (1892) ("[That] he was willing to pay something for the land to avoid litigation * * * and he made an offer for the land......
-
Cahill v. Morrow, No. 2008-34-Appeal.
...claim in order to clear its title, and that this was after its possession had continued for more than five years."); Warren v. Bowdran, 31 N.E. 300, 301-02 (Mass. 1892) ("[That] he was willing to pay something for the land to avoid litigation * * * and he made an offer for the land, that fa......
-
Robert v. Perron
...here. The use here did not begin by permission nor was it permissive within the meaning of those decisions. Warren v. Bowdran, 156 Mass. 280, 31 N. E. 300. The entry of an interlocutory decree confirming the report but omitting any reference to the exception, does not preclude the court fro......
-
Peck v. Bigelow, 92-P-426
...at 302, 560 N.E.2d 135, but the judge could find in the circumstances that it was probative of that proposition. See Warren v. Bowdran, 156 Mass. 280, 283, 31 N.E. 300 (1892). So also the judge could read the direct colloquy between the defendant and opposing counsel about the defendant's s......