Bancroft v. Consen
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Petition for partition. The defence was a denial of the petitioner’s seisin. At the trial in this court, before Colt, J., it appeared that the petitioner claimed title under an officer’s deed purporting to convey to him the right in equity of Charles Hersey to redeem one undivided half of certain land from a mortgage.
Read the full summary
Petition for partition. The defence was a denial of the petitioner’s seisin. At the trial in this court, before Colt, J., it appeared that the petitioner claimed title under an officer’s deed purporting to convey to him the right in equity of Charles Hersey to redeem one undivided half of certain land from a mortgage. To show that Hersey had such right in equity, the petitioner put in a deed of one undivided half of the land, subject to a mortgage, from John Kelley, “ in consideration of one hundred and twenty-five dollars paid by Charles Hersey, of Worcester, guardian of the minor children…
1Opinion of the CourtChapman, J.
If Hersey held the land in controversy in trust for the minor children of Edward Hart, and if the petitioner had notice of the trust, then the officer’s deed to the petitioner conveyed no title, because the land was not subject to be levied upon by Hersey’s creditors. The deed by which the land was conveyed to Hersey, and which was on record, contains both the alleged declaration of trust and the notice of it. Of course the petitioner must be taken to have had all the knowledge which is conveyed by the language of that deed. It is from John Kelley to Hersey, and is expressed to be “ in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Blaisdell v. StevensSupreme Court of Vermont · 1844
- Williams v. FullertonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1848