Bascom v. Dempsey
9 N.E. 744, 143 Mass. 409, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 316
Opinion
The ruling of the court was correct. If the plaintiff was not in possession “ except through his tenants,” who “ were then in actual possession,” and the acts of the defendant were an injury to the reversion, the declaration should have so alleged the facts. Woodman v. Francis, 14 Allen, 198. Gooding v. Shea, 103 Mass. 360. Dearborn v. Wellman, 130 Mass. 238.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bascom v. Dempsey, 9 N.E. 744, 143 Mass. 409, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 316 (Mass. 1887).
9 N.E. 744 (Bascom v. Dempsey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Attorney General v. Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB
596 N.E.2d 1013 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1992)
New York Life Insurance v. Boston Consolidated Gas Co.
5 Mass. App. Div. 52 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1940)
Casey v. Mason
1899 OK 113 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1899)
Hersey v. Chapin
38 N.E. 442 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1894)
Rockwood v. Robinson
34 N.E. 521 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)