Proprietors of Locks & Canals on Merrimack River v. Nashua & Lowell Railroad
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Whit of entry dated June 28, 1869, to recover two lots of and in Lowell, marked respectively A and C on a plan of a large tract of land, which was made part of the agreed facts on which the case was submitted to the determination of the full court, substantially as follows : The demandants were seised in fee simple of the tract of land, and except as hereinafter stated have not been disseised or dispossessed of any part of it.
Read the full summary
Whit of entry dated June 28, 1869, to recover two lots of and in Lowell, marked respectively A and C on a plan of a large tract of land, which was made part of the agreed facts on which the case was submitted to the determination of the full court, substantially as follows : The demandants were seised in fee simple of the tract of land, and except as hereinafter stated have not been disseised or dispossessed of any part of it. In 1838, the tenants, by authority of their charter, St. 1836, c. 249, and the general laws relating to railroads, and without the consent of the demandants, filed…
1Opinion of the CourtWells, J.
Under this agreed statement, the form of action and the pleadings become immaterial. But the principles-which govern proceedings under a writ of entry are well adapted to test the relations and rights of the parties, in respect to the matters in controversy, in this suit.
In regard to that part of the lot first described which is designated as parcel B, the title of the demandants, and their right of immediate possession are admitted. The only question is whether the action may be defeated by the specification of non-*7tenure and disclaimer in defence. The defendant corporation has been in the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Wintersmith & Young v. Pointer & ConwayCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
- Stackpole v. HealyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1819
- Ham v. City of SalemMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Hayford v. SpokesfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Alden v. MurdockMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by58 opinions
- Davis v. Old Colony RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
- Calcasieu Lumber Co. v. HarrisTexas Supreme Court · 1890
- Lorain Steel Co. v. Norfolk & Bristol Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- Roby v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Prather v. Jeffersonville, Madison & Indianapolis RailroadIndiana Supreme Court · 1875
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.