TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

MacNeil Bros. v. State Realty Company of Boston, Inc.

MacNeil Bros. Co. v. State Realty Company of Boston, Inc.

MacNeil Bros. v. State Realty Co. of Boston, 131 N.E.2d 178 (Mass. 1956)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 4, 1956
Citations
131 N.E.2d 178333 Mass. 770

Opinion of the Court

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

Interlocutory decree sustaining demurrer affirmed. Final decree affirmed with costs of the appeal. This bill in equity asks the Superior Court to remove a cloud on a title allegedly resulting from a mortgage “that may possibly be now held by the defendant” and from the defendant’s possession under it, and to enter a declaratory decree determining the effect of the mortgage on the property. The defendant’s demurrer was rightly sustained. A bill will lie to remove a cloud on a title only if legal title and actual possession are united in the plaintiff. First Baptist Church of Sharon v. Harper, 191 Mass. 196, 209 . Vitelli v. Ryder, 329 Mass. 119, 123 . The only suggestion of matter in controversy between the parties (G. L. [Ter. Ed.] c. 231 A, § 1, inserted by St. 1945, c. 582, § 1) is in respect of the effect of a “final decree . . . decreeing redemption” of the subject property, entered in the Superior Court in other litigation between the parties, and of a subsequent “order” therein “which apparently may have been an attempt to modify or change the final decree” and “may have been entered by the court without right,” and also the effect of the plaintiff’s alleged recording of that “final decree” pursuant to G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 183, §§ 43 and 44, as amended. No actual controversy is stated and the possibility or probability is not negatived that whatever points are at issue are resolvable in due course of that other litigation on appeal or in the Superior Court. The bill does not contain a clear and precise statement of all the material facts adequate to inform the defendant and the court of the nature of the plaintiff’s claim. Bressler v. Averbuck, 322 Mass. 139, 142 .

How later courts describe this case

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

1959: 11970: 11978: 11996: 22017: 12021: 119592026peak 1996 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Progressive Consumers Federal Credit Union v. United States79 F.3d 1228 (1st Cir. 1996)
  2. State Realty Co. of Boston, Inc. v. MacNeil Bros. Co.265 N.E.2d 85 (Mass. 1970)
  3. Cowden v. Cutting158 N.E.2d 324 (Mass. 1959)
  4. McCartin Leisure Industries, Inc. v. Baker378 N.E.2d 980 (Mass. 1978)
  5. Progressive v. United StatesNo. 95-1712 (1st Cir. Mar. 19, 1996)
  6. Barrasso v. New Century Mortgage Corp.No. AC 15-P-1458 (Mass. App. Ct. Feb. 8, 2017)

Most recent

  1. Griffin v. CarvillNo. 17-000692 (July 6, 2021)
  2. Barrasso v. New Century Mortgage Corp.No. AC 15-P-1458 (Mass. App. Ct. Feb. 8, 2017)
  3. Progressive Consumers Federal Credit Union v. United States79 F.3d 1228 (1st Cir. 1996)
  4. Progressive v. United StatesNo. 95-1712 (1st Cir. Mar. 19, 1996)
  5. McCartin Leisure Industries, Inc. v. Baker378 N.E.2d 980 (Mass. 1978)
  6. State Realty Co. of Boston, Inc. v. MacNeil Bros. Co.265 N.E.2d 85 (Mass. 1970)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Bressler v. Averbuck, 76 N.E.2d 146 (Mass. 1947) 31
First Baptist Church of Sharon v. Harper, 77 N.E. 778 (Mass. 1906) 27
Vitelli v. Ryder, 106 N.E.2d 541 (Mass. 1952) 4

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