Goodnow v. Shattuck
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Two ACTIONS OE TORT for entering a certain house in Worcester owned by the plaintiff’s husband and occupied by her, and doing certain acts therein tending to disturb her occupation. The cases were tried together in the Superior Court, before Gardner, J., who reported them for the determination of this court, in substance as follows: The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show the acts complained of.
Read the full summary
Two ACTIONS OE TORT for entering a certain house in Worcester owned by the plaintiff’s husband and occupied by her, and doing certain acts therein tending to disturb her occupation. The cases were tried together in the Superior Court, before Gardner, J., who reported them for the determination of this court, in substance as follows: The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show the acts complained of. There was also evidence tending to show that, prior to December 1, 1880, Edward A. Goodnow, the husband of the plaintiff, was the owner of the premises in question, and that the plaintiff and…
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
It is admitted that no assault was made upon the plaintiff. The acts for which the defendants are severally sued were acts of dominion, which they had a right to exercise by reason of their respective titles as lessee and owner of the premises. Even if the plaintiff had a standing to require a surrender of the lease and a reconveyance of the fee, still, so long as the defendants retained their titles, it would be hard for a common law court to say that they had not the rights incident to them.
But the plaintiff had no standing to complain of either lease or conveyance. Whatever rights a wife…
2Cited by2 opinions
- W v. WMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
- Washburn v. HammondMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890