Hoxie v. Finney
This text of 77 Mass. 511 (Hoxie v. Finney) 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.
Opinion
The verdict was properly taken for the tenant. The amended pleadings obviated all objections, if any existed before such amendment. The disclaimer therefore properly answers the demand, as to all the land embraced in the same As to the two undivided third parts, the title of the tenant as mortgagee was well established and is a good answer to the action. A mortgagee, whether an entry into the possession of the premises has or has not taken place, has no occasion to disclaim an absolute fee, or set out the nature of his interest. His seisin in fee and mortgage is quite sufficient title to constitute a good defence and entitle him to a general verdict. Such interest differs from that of a mere easement, or license, or some subordinate interest, as was the case of Miller v. Miller, 4 Pick. 244, and the case supposed in Pynchon v. Stearns, 11 Met. 312, cited by the plaintiffs’ counsel.
Judgment on the verdict for the tenant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
77 Mass. 511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoxie-v-finney-mass-1858.