Hunt v. Hapgood
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The petitioner demanded one undivided ninth part of the de scribed premises lying in Acton, in the county of Middlesex, the petition having been preferred to the Court of Common Pleas in that county.
Read the full summary
The petitioner demanded one undivided ninth part of the de scribed premises lying in Acton, in the county of Middlesex, the petition having been preferred to the Court of Common Pleas in that county. On public notice by order of that court, the respondents, Abraham Hapgood and Ephraim Hapgood, appeared and pleaded their several seisin of the described premises in bar of the partition, to which the petitioner put in a demurrer with reservation, and from the judgment that partition be made, he appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, holden in April, 1806. The cause stood continued until April…
1Opinion of the Court
The cause stood continued nisi for advisement, and now at this term the opinion of the Court was delivered by
Parsons, C. J.
It appears from the case that the father of the respondents died seised of the premises, and of other lands, intestate, leaving the respondents, their brother Joseph, under whom the plaintiff claims, and five others, his children and heirs; that the premises were assigned to the widow as her dower ; Jo-[*119 ] seph being seised of one ninth * part of the reversion ; that the dowager died on the 16th of April, 1803; that, on the 18th of October following, the petitioner…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Smith v. RiceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Barber v. ChaseSupreme Court of Vermont · 1928
- Hendrick v. CleavelandSupreme Court of Vermont · 1828
- Snow v. RussellSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1899
- Clough v. CromwellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.