Ingraham v. Dunnell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
In a bill in equity, filed in August 1839,* the plaintiff set forth, that on the 3d of March 1837, he became seized and possessed of a water mill and calico works on Beveridge Brook, in the town of Pawtucket, and of certain dwellinghouses, gardens, out houses, &c., near-to said mill, and continued to be seized and possessed thereof, until March 1st 1839, when he demised the same to Horatio N. Ingraham, to hold for the term of three years, with a covenant for quiet enjoyment,…
Read the full summary
In a bill in equity, filed in August 1839,* the plaintiff set forth, that on the 3d of March 1837, he became seized and possessed of a water mill and calico works on Beveridge Brook, in the town of Pawtucket, and of certain dwellinghouses, gardens, out houses, &c., near-to said mill, and continued to be seized and possessed thereof, until March 1st 1839, when he demised the same to Horatio N. Ingraham, to hold for the term of three years, with a covenant for quiet enjoyment, “ free from the adverse claims of all persons ; ” and that he still had the reversion thereof, after the expiration of…
1Opinion of the Court
Wilde,,J.
This is a case of importance, as it concerns property of great value, in the lawful enjoyment of which each party is entitled to protection. But as the parties have opposite interests, and the free exercise of their rights and privileges, respectively claimed, is incompatible, it will follow that however the case may be decided, one or the other of the parties will be subjected to a loss of property, or other consequential damages, which may be very considerable. We have, therefore, taken time to look into the authorities cited, and to consider the case with attention and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Vaughan v. Heirs of NobleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
3Cited by1 opinion
- Maryland Casualty Company v. SassoSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1964