Walsh v. Macomber
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Toet for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close. The answer of the defendant admitted the plaintiff’s title to the close, but alleged that the same was subject to the right of the defendant to enter the close, and to pass to and from the well thereon for the purpose of obtaining water, and that in the proper exercise of that right he entered the close, and not otherwise.
Read the full summary
Toet for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close. The answer of the defendant admitted the plaintiff’s title to the close, but alleged that the same was subject to the right of the defendant to enter the close, and to pass to and from the well thereon for the purpose of obtaining water, and that in the proper exercise of that right he entered the close, and not otherwise. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Aldrich, J., without a jury, the plaintiff put in evidence a deed of the said land, from the defendant to Henry E. Atwell, dated November 19, 1866, conveying the granted…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The deed to the plaintiff was an execution of the power in the mortgage, and passed all the mortgagee’s title under the mortgage, as well as the mortgagor’s equity of redemption. Brown v. Smith, 116 Mass. 108. Torrey v. Cook 116 Mass. 163, Hall v. Bliss, 118 Mass. 554. But it did not convey the *77independent right which had been reserved to the mortgagee aa grantor in the original deed to the mortgagor.
Exceptions overruled.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hall v. BlissMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Torrey v. CookMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Brown v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
3Cited by2 opinions
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. English Construction Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- City of Rockland v. FarnsworthSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1899