Holmes v. Holmes
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was a writ of right. The demandant having dec.ared on his own seisin within forty years, moved, at the last term, to amend by striking out forty and inserting thirty; but Putnam J. disallowed the motion. And now L. Shaw, for the demandant, suggested the death of one of the tenants, since the action was entered in this Court.
Read the full summary
This was a writ of right. The demandant having dec.ared on his own seisin within forty years, moved, at the last term, to amend by striking out forty and inserting thirty; but Putnam J. disallowed the motion. And now L. Shaw, for the demandant, suggested the death of one of the tenants, since the action was entered in this Court. The questions were, first, whether the amendment could be allowed, and secondly, whether the action could be prosecuted against the surviving tenants.
1Opinion of the Court
W. Baylies,
in reply, cited Oxnard v. Proprietors of Kennebeck Purchase, 10 Mass. R. 179, and Cutts v. Haskins, 11 Mass. R. 56, to show that a writ of right is abated by the death' of one of the demandants, and said, that if it was necessary at first to bring all the tenants of the land into Court, the same necessity continued to exist. The land of the deceased tenant in the present case does not survive to the other tenants. In the passage quoted from Thomas v. Smith, there was a joint seisin by disseisin. He cited also, 1 Chit. Pl. 56.
In the course of the argument Wilde J. remarked, that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cutts v. HaskinsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814