Mahoney v. Heebner

178 N.E.2d 26, 343 Mass. 770
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 1, 1961·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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

Mahoney v. Heebner, 178 N.E.2d 26, 343 Mass. 770 (Mass. 1961).

178 N.E.2d 26 (Mahoney v. Heebner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

MATTHEW WALSTON & Another v. JAMES BUNN & Others.
Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2026
Larson v. Tonneson
2019 ND 230 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2019)
Barnett v. Myerow
130 N.E.3d 817 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2019)
Queenan v. Marchionne
27 Mass. L. Rptr. 427 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 2010)
Stagman v. Kyhos
476 N.E.2d 257 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1985)
Kay v. Biggs
475 P.2d 1 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1970)