Mahoney v. Heebner
This text of 178 N.E.2d 26 (Mahoney v. Heebner) 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
Final decree affirmed with costs of appeal. The master’s conclusion that the plaintiff and his predecessors in title, by continuous use for more than twenty years, have acquired a right by prescription to use a driveway which passes over the defendants’ land was consistent with and justified by his other findings. Seasonal absence of the plaintiff and his predecessors from their summer residence did not require a finding that the adverse use was not continuous. Kershaw v. Zecchini, 342 Mass. 318, 320-321, and cases cited. Restatement: Property, § 459 (1), comment b. Anno. 24 A. L. R. 2d 632.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
178 N.E.2d 26, 343 Mass. 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahoney-v-heebner-mass-1961.