Mussey v. Sanborn
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was a petition for partition. On a trial before Thatcher, J., it appeared that the petitioner’s title to the moiety of the premises described in his petition was under a lease for 900 years, and that the respondent was seised in fee of the other moiety. A verdict was returned for the petitioner, subject to the opinion of the Court, upon the right of his to maintain this process under the statute.
1Opinion of the CourtParker, C. J.
This process is given by the statute to allpersons interested. The respondent contends that it was the intent of the legislature to confine it to those whose estate is an inheritance in fee, or at least a freehold, in the premises.
But we see no reason for thus restricting this beneficial process. A lessee for years of an undivided part may have as great an interest in procuring a severance as a tenant for life ; and although inconveniences may arise from allowing lessees for a short term to avail themselves of this provision, yet, on the other hand, as estates for years may be much more…
2Cited by7 opinions
- O'Brien v. MahoneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
- Tower v. TowerIndiana Supreme Court · 1895
- Teasley v. HulmeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1920
- Hunt v. HazeltonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1830
- Warren v. HendricksOregon Supreme Court · 1901
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.