Moses v. Morse
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
ON EXCEPTIONS. Trespass qu. cl. The writ was dated May 21, 1879. Each party claimed title to the locus in quo. Plaintiffs put into the case a deed of William Morse to defendant. This deed contained the folio vying reservation : " Except the lot deeded to Reuben S. Morse, reference to deed from me to said Reuben, bearing even date with this deed.”
Read the full summary
ON EXCEPTIONS. Trespass qu. cl. The writ was dated May 21, 1879. Each party claimed title to the locus in quo. Plaintiffs put into the case a deed of William Morse to defendant. This deed contained the folio vying reservation : " Except the lot deeded to Reuben S. Morse, reference to deed from me to said Reuben, bearing even date with this deed.” Having proved that William executed a deed at the same time purporting to convey a tract of land to Reuben S. Morse, and having given evidence tending to prove the delivery and loss of the last named deed, unrecorded, the plaintiffs offered parol…
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, J.
If an unrecorded deed be lost after delivery, is parol evidence of its contents admissible ? Is there a distinction, in this respect, between a lost deed recorded and one not recorded? We think such proof admissible. No statute prevents it. The statutes seek, in several ways, to make an unrecorded deed valid and available to those interested in or under it. It is but a rule of evidence that requires deeds to be recorded before introduced as evidence. The rule cannot require a deed not in existence to be recorded. Impossibilities are not required. The necessity of the case establishes an…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Robinson v. BrennanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
3Cited by2 opinions
- Maddock v. ConnollyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1913
- Borstelman v. BrohanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1913