Cole v. Inhabitants of Eastham
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Writ or ENTRY, dated February 23, 1877, to recover a parcel of land in Eastham. Plea, nul disseisin, with a disclaimer of title to the demanded premises. The demandants filed the following replication: “ And now come the demandants in the above entitled action, and deny each and every allegation in the tenant’s plea contained.
Read the full summary
Writ or ENTRY, dated February 23, 1877, to recover a parcel of land in Eastham. Plea, nul disseisin, with a disclaimer of title to the demanded premises. The demandants filed the following replication: “ And now come the demandants in the above entitled action, and deny each and every allegation in the tenant’s plea contained. And the demandants say that the said tenant has, within twenty years last past, claimed title to the demanded premises, and has received the rents and profits of the same.” At the trial in the Superior Court, before Aldrich, J., it appeared in evidence that there was…
1Opinion of the CourtLord, J.
So far as any question is intended to be raised upon the pleadings in this case, it is probable that the question is whether the tenant has been in such possession of the demanded premises as to exclude the demandants from possession, or to authorize the demandants to elect to consider themselves disseised. We presume that all the evidence deemed material is reported. Upon, this evidence, a jury would not be warranted in finding that the tenant had disseised the demandants or had claimed any title to the soil and freehold. The utmost which the evidence would warrant a jury to find is, that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Proprietors of Locks & Canals on Merrimack River v. Nashua & Lowell RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
3Cited by2 opinions
- Lavery v. EganMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- Tappan v. Boston Water Power Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892