Daniell v. Shaw

44 N.E. 991, 166 Mass. 582, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 178
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedOctober 21, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 44 N.E. 991 (Daniell v. Shaw) 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
Daniell v. Shaw, 44 N.E. 991, 166 Mass. 582, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 178 (Mass. 1896).

Opinion

Allen, J.

The defendant contends that the plaintiff is not able to offer him a good title, by reason of the provisions of St. 1891, c. 323, as amended by. St. 1892, c. 418, and the acts of the board of survey of the city of Boston thereunder. The plaintiff concedes that his title is not good if the statute is constitutional. The parties also differ in their construction. of the statute. The city of Boston is interested in both of these questions. It has been allowed to file a brief, but it is not a party to the record, and would not be precluded from litigating the [585]*585same questions anew if our decision in the present case were for the plaintiff. The defendant would be exposed to the chance of such litigation if compelled to accept the title now offered. By the concession of the plaintiff, the statute, if constitutional, creates an encumbrance on his title. The plaintiff asks us to declare his title good, by declaring the statute unconstitutional. The defendant ought not to be compelled to accept such a title. Jeffries v. Jeffries, 117 Mass. 184. Chesman v. Cummings, 142 Mass. 65. Hunting v. Damon, 160 Mass. 441. Abbott v. James, 111 N. Y. 673. Fleming v. Burnham, 100 N. Y. 1, 9. Bill dismissed.

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

Related

Freedman v. Walsh
119 N.E.2d 419 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1954)
Flier v. Rubin
73 N.E.2d 742 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1947)
Olszewski v. Sardynski
56 N.E.2d 607 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1944)
Miller v. Milwaukee Odd Fellows Temple, Inc.
240 N.W. 193 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1932)
Kittinger v. Rossman
112 A. 388 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1921)
Anderson v. Steinway & Sons
178 A.D. 507 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1917)
Stack v. Hickey
138 N.W. 1011 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1912)
McNutt v. Nellans
108 P. 834 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1910)
Howe v. Coates
107 N.W. 397 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1906)
Whelan v. Rossiter
82 P. 1082 (California Court of Appeal, 1905)
French v. Folsom
63 N.E. 938 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1902)
Loring v. Whitney
46 N.E. 57 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 N.E. 991, 166 Mass. 582, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniell-v-shaw-mass-1896.