Holbrook v. Tirrell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was a petition for partition of land in Braintree, of which the petitioner averred that he was seised of an undivided moiety as tenant in common with the respondent. The respondent pleaded that he was sole seised, and traversed the petitioner’s seisin. At the trial, before Morton J., the following facts were proved or admitted.
Read the full summary
This was a petition for partition of land in Braintree, of which the petitioner averred that he was seised of an undivided moiety as tenant in common with the respondent. The respondent pleaded that he was sole seised, and traversed the petitioner’s seisin. At the trial, before Morton J., the following facts were proved or admitted. On December 21st, 1809, Reuben Blanchard, then owning an undivided moiety of the land as tenant in common with Ebenezer Blanchard, for a \aluable consideration, conveyed his moiety by deed of release to co-tenant Ebenezer. But this deed was never recorded. On…
1Opinion of the Court
Parker C. J.
That the mere cancellation of the deed, under which one holds title to real estate, does not divest the title or revest it in the grantor, seems to be abundantly settled by the cases cited on the argument, and more particularly by two cases to which we have since been referred by the petitioner’s counsel, namely, 4 Connect. R. 550, and 5 Connect. R. 262.1
But we think the respondent’s seisin and title are maintained by the facts proved, consistently with this doctrine. By Reuben Blanchard’s deed to Ebenezer, not recorded, the title became vested in Ebenezer as against the grantor…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. DudleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Wiley v. ChristSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835