Legal Opinion

Magaw v. Beals

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided July 1, 1922PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBraley, J.

The jury would have been warranted in finding that, ten or twelve years previous to March 17, 1919, the record title to the premises in question was in one Albert E. Little, also an attorney at law, who formerly had been in the same law office as the defendant. While Mr. Little had no beneficial interest, the title being taken in his name for undisclosed reasons, the defendant, his brother, and his sister’s husband, Frank A. Bourne, who acted as trustees under an unrecorded trust deed, were the real owners. Mr. Little when he acquired title, simultaneously reconveyed to the trustees; but the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Feneff v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
  2. Skally v. ShutsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
  3. Gurney v. TenneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
  4. Bartlett v. TuckerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
  5. Fillebrown v. HoarMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Connors v. WickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1945
  2. Massachusetts Lubricant Corp. v. SoconyVacuum Oil Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
  3. Magaw v. BealsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
  4. Flaxman v. Capitol City Press, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1936
  5. Connolly v. KilcourseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API