Munn v. Stone

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Munn v. Stone

58 Mass. 146

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedSeptember 15, 1849

StatusPublished

This text of 58 Mass. 146 (Munn v. Stone) 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

Munn v. Stone, 58 Mass. 146 (Mass. 1849).

Pincite

Opinion

By the court.

We cannot distinguish between the reservation of a right or privilege of entering on a particular, designated part of a tract conveyed, and carrying away stone, and a reservation of the use of a marble quarry, out of the land conveyed, for a limited time. Whether it is an exclusive use, or a use in common, may be a question; but it is the same in both cases. We think, therefore, that this case is substantially governed by that of Farnum v. Platt, 8 Pick. 339. The only difference is, that in the case cited, the use reserved was for a term of years; in this case, it is a reservation to the grantor generally, which, being without words of limitation, is a right for his life. We are of opinion, therefore, that the reservation recited did not constitute a mere privilege to [148]*148Lyman to take stone personally, but was a right and interest .in the use of the ledge, which was assignable ; and the de fendants, having obtained a right of him, were not chargeable with the trespass complained of.

Report accepted, and judgment thereon for the defendants.

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

By the court.

We cannot distinguish between the reservation of a right or privilege of entering on a particular, designated part of a tract conveyed, and carrying away stone, and a reservation of the use of a marble quarry, out of the land conveyed, for a limited time. Whether it is an exclusive use, or a use in common, may be a question; but it is the same in both cases. We think, therefore, that this case is substantially governed by that of Farnum v. Platt, 8 Pick. 339. The only difference is, that in the case cited, the use reserved was for a term of years; in this case, it is a reservation to the grantor generally, which, being without words of limitation, is a right for his life. We are of opinion, therefore, that the reservation recited did not constitute a mere privilege to [148]*148Lyman to take stone personally, but was a right and interest .in the use of the ledge, which was assignable ; and the de fendants, having obtained a right of him, were not chargeable with the trespass complained of.

Report accepted, and judgment thereon for the defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 Mass. 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munn-v-stone-mass-1849.