Hannum v. Kingsley
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Writ oe entry brought on May 12,1871, under the Gen. Sts. c. 102, §§ 12, 13, by the administrators of the estate of Waitstill S. Pomeroy, to recover a parcel of land in Northampton. Plea, nul disseisin.
Read the full summary
Writ oe entry brought on May 12,1871, under the Gen. Sts. c. 102, §§ 12, 13, by the administrators of the estate of Waitstill S. Pomeroy, to recover a parcel of land in Northampton. Plea, nul disseisin. Trial in the superior court, before Pitman, J., who by consent of the parties made a report under the St. of 1869, o. 438, before verdict, of which the following is the substance: It was agreed that the demandants were duly licensed to sell the real estate of their intestate; that after the license was granted, and before this action was brought, Hannum made a formal entry on the demanded…
1Opinion of the CourtGbay, J.
The deed of February 1, 1838, under which the tenant claims title, first clearly describes all the boundaries of *361“ one piece of land lying the south side of the county road,” on both sides of the river, bounded by Cole’s land on the west, by a definite line on the south, and by Bartlett’s land on the east. It then adds “ all the land situate and lying north of the road aforesaid, bounded north of the heirs of Matthew Clark’s land, and west on ” another road distinctly identified. Upon applying the deed to the land as shown on the plan, we can have no doubt that, taking the whole deed…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Slater v. BreeseMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Butler v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1977
- American Insurance v. FranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1903