Baker v. Crosby

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Baker v. Crosby

75 Mass. 421

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1857

StatusPublished

This text of 75 Mass. 421 (Baker v. Crosby) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baker v. Crosby, 75 Mass. 421 (Mass. 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

There is no evidence of a right of way by grant or necessity ; for it does not appear that Lydia Packard ever owned the Meeting-house Green ; and if Porter ever had a way of necessity over • it, he subsequently acquired other land, bounding on the land granted to him by Packard, and on a public way, which removed the necessity. Nichols v. Luce, 24 Pick. 102. Holmes v. Goring, 2 Bing. 76, and 9 Moore, 166. Woolrych on Ways, 71.

But there was evidence tending to show a way of prescrip. [425]*425tian. Such were the facts, that there was no other ready or convenient access; that the house stood there at the time of the deed to Porter in 1745, and its occupants had since used the way claimed; that there were gates opening into the green, and a regular track from the principal gate to the main street, indicating a peculiar and exclusive use. This evidence should have been submitted to the jury. Exceptions sustained.

[426]*426CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED * IN THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF NORFOLK, OCTOBER TERM 1857, AT DEDHAM. Hon. LEMUEL SHAW, Chief Justice. Hon. CHARLES A. DEWEY, ~| Hon. THERON METCALF, i TmTICBa Hon. BENJAMIN F. THOMAS, f duSTICBSHon. PLINY MERRICK, J

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Court.

There is no evidence of a right of way by grant or necessity ; for it does not appear that Lydia Packard ever owned the Meeting-house Green ; and if Porter ever had a way of necessity over • it, he subsequently acquired other land, bounding on the land granted to him by Packard, and on a public way, which removed the necessity. Nichols v. Luce, 24 Pick. 102. Holmes v. Goring, 2 Bing. 76, and 9 Moore, 166. Woolrych on Ways, 71.

But there was evidence tending to show a way of prescrip. [425]*425tian. Such were the facts, that there was no other ready or convenient access; that the house stood there at the time of the deed to Porter in 1745, and its occupants had since used the way claimed; that there were gates opening into the green, and a regular track from the principal gate to the main street, indicating a peculiar and exclusive use. This evidence should have been submitted to the jury. Exceptions sustained.

[426]*426CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED * IN THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF NORFOLK, OCTOBER TERM 1857, AT DEDHAM. Hon. LEMUEL SHAW, Chief Justice. Hon. CHARLES A. DEWEY, ~| Hon. THERON METCALF, i TmTICBa Hon. BENJAMIN F. THOMAS, f duSTICBSHon. PLINY MERRICK, J

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 Mass. 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-crosby-mass-1857.