TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Mussey v. Sanborn

William Mussey versus David Sanborn

Mussey v. Sanborn, 15 Mass. 155 (1818)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 15, 1818
Judges
Parker
Citations
15 Mass. 155
Headnotes
Partition may be had on petition of tenant for years, although the tenant of the other part of the premises holds the same in fee.
Summary
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.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Parker

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Parker, 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 durable than mere freeholds, it would be dangerous to establish a principle which should except such estates from the operation of the statute. If a discrimination is necessary between estates held by long and short leases, the legislature is alone competent to make it.

If it were required to search for the intent of the legislature, in order to fix a meaning to the general term * made use of, it would be only necessary to recur to the law as it stood before the passing of the statute.

By the common law, the writ of partition would lie only between coparceners whose estates were equal. But, by the statute of 31 Hen. 8 , c. 1, all persons having estates of inheritance were allowed *144 the writ. By the statute 32 Hen. 8 , c. 32, the privilege was extended to tenants in common, or joint-tenants of estates for years only. Thus stood the law when our ancestors migrated to this country; and the provincial legislature, by the statute of 5 W. & M.. c. 19, gave the writ of partition to all joint-tenants and tenants in common, without regard to the duration of their estates. Then came the statute of the commonwealth, 1783, c. 41, entitled, “ An act for the more easy partition of lands and other real estate; ” and this gives the right of severance to all persons interested with others in such estate— without doubt intending to embrace all the cases before provided for, in relation to writs of partition, within those very general terms. This historical account of the law on this subject shows, very clearly, that estates for years, as well as other estates, are subject to the provisions of our statute.

Judgment on the verdict.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1830–1831: 11834–1835: 11894–1895: 11900–1901: 21920–1921: 118302026peak 1900 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. O'Brien v. Mahoney60 N.E. 493 (Mass. 1901)
  2. Tower v. Tower40 N.E. 747 (Ind. 1895)
  3. Teasley v. Hulme104 S.E. 151 (Ga. 1920)
  4. Warren v. Hendricks66 P. 607 (Or. 1901)
  5. Hunt v. Hazelton5 N.H. 216 (1830)
  6. Brown v. Brown8 N.H. 93 (1835)

Most recent

  1. Teasley v. Hulme104 S.E. 151 (Ga. 1920)
  2. Warren v. Hendricks66 P. 607 (Or. 1901)
  3. O'Brien v. Mahoney60 N.E. 493 (Mass. 1901)
  4. Tower v. Tower40 N.E. 747 (Ind. 1895)
  5. Brown v. Brown8 N.H. 93 (1835)
  6. Hunt v. Hazelton5 N.H. 216 (1830)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list