Mount Hope Iron Co. v. Dearden
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Petition for partition of a parcel of land in Somerset. At the hearing upon the question whether interlocutory judgment for partition should be awarded, the respondents contended that the premises should be sold, and could not be advantageously divided; but the court ordered an interlocutory judgment to be entered for partition. No exception to or appeal from that order was taken.
Read the full summary
Petition for partition of a parcel of land in Somerset. At the hearing upon the question whether interlocutory judgment for partition should be awarded, the respondents contended that the premises should be sold, and could not be advantageously divided; but the court ordered an interlocutory judgment to be entered for partition. No exception to or appeal from that order was taken. Commissioners to make partition were duly appointed, and made a report to the court, setting off to the petitioner by metes and bounds a certain portion of the ■common premises, and also all the right in a…
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
It was not open to the respondents, after an interlocutory judgment, to which they had practically consented, to set up want of title in the petitioner as a bar to the petition. Brown v. Bulkley, 11 Cush. 168. Wonson v. Wonson, 14 Allen, 71, 81. Savery v. Taylor, 102 Mass. 509, 511.
A more difficult question is raised by the attempt of the commissioners to set off to the petitioner all the rights in a passageway theretofore appurtenant to the whole estate, and to provide that the passageway should “ become exclusively appurtenant to the share set off to the petitioner.” If the right of way…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Savery v. TaylorMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
3Cited by3 opinions
- Starkie v. RichmondMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Bornstein v. DohertyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
- Long v. SchoweIndiana Supreme Court · 1914