Brooks v. Reynolds

106 Mass. 31
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1870
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 106 Mass. 31 (Brooks v. Reynolds) 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
Brooks v. Reynolds, 106 Mass. 31 (Mass. 1870).

Opinion

Gray, 3.

It is now well settled that by the common law of Massachusetts a deed of land passes no right of light and air over other lands, without express words. Rogers v. Sawin, 10 Gray [33]*33376. Carrig v. Dee, 14 Gray, 583. Richardson v. Pond, 15 Gray, 387. The extent of the plaintiff’s rights therefore depends upon the terms of the deed from the New Cornhill Corporation to Hurd, under which the plaintiff claims title ; and we are all of opinion that by that deed was granted the right to the open and unobstructed passage of light and air from the ground upwards and throughout the length of the passageway, five feet wide in the clear at the end next the building thereby conveyed, and two feet and eight inches wide at the other end of the passageway; and that the subsequent deed from the corporation to Hurd of a strip of land four inches deep next his building did not extinguish or impair that right over' the rest of the passageway. The ruling of the learned judge who presided at the trial in the superior court, that upon the construction of the conveyances the plaintiff took only the common law right of air and light, was therefore erroneous; and as the judgment for the defendants was based upon that ruling only, without passing upon the other grounds of defence, the Exceptions must be sustained.

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

Related

Healey v. Smith Carriage Co.
163 N.E. 856 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)
Tidd v. Fifty Associates
131 N.E. 77 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Goodwin v. Bragaw
86 A. 668 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1913)
Frost v. Jacobs
90 N.E. 357 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
Lipsky v. Heller
85 N.E. 453 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)
St. Louis Safe Deposit & Savings Bank v. Kennett Estate
74 S.W. 474 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1903)
Crocker v. Cotting
63 N.E. 402 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1902)
Baker v. Willard
40 L.R.A. 754 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1898)
Humphreys v. Third Nat. Bank of Cincinnati
75 F. 852 (Sixth Circuit, 1896)
Keating v. Springer
22 L.R.A. 544 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1893)
Grafton v. . Moir
29 N.E. 974 (New York Court of Appeals, 1892)
Ladd v. City of Boston
24 N.E. 858 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890)
Burnham v. Nevins
10 N.E. 494 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1887)
Hogan v. Barry
10 N.E. 253 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1887)
Attorney General v. Williams
140 Mass. 329 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1885)
Norcross v. James
2 N.E. 946 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1885)
White v. Bradley
66 Me. 254 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1876)
Keats v. Hugo
115 Mass. 204 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
106 Mass. 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-reynolds-mass-1870.