Case ID: mass_157/html/0067-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Field, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard Leeds & another vs. Mason O. Wheeler.
    Suffolk.
    March 25, 1892.
    June 24, 1892.
    Present: Field, C. J., Allen, Holmes, Lathrop, & Barker, JJ.
    
      Deed — Caveat in Registry of Deeds — Cloud upon Title.
    
    A paper signed by A. and recorded in the registry of deeds, giving notice that certain real estate held by B. is subject to an equitable interest in favor of A., and that A. forbids all persons purchasing the same, does not constitute a cloud upon the title.
    Bill in equity, filed on July 22, 1891, to remove a cloud from a title.
    The bill alleged that the plaintiffs were owners in fee simple of a parcel of land in Worcester, and that the defendant signed, sealed, acknowledged, and had recorded in the Worcester Registry of Deeds the following writing:
    “ Know all men by these presents that I, Mason O. Wheeler, of Lynn, in the county of Essex and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, claim an equitable interest in all the land conveyed by Ellsworth and Herrick to Richard Leeds of Boston, Massachusetts, and Thomas B. Townsend of Milton, Massachusetts, in June, 1891, said land being the Wakefield Farm, so called, situated in the city and county of Worcester and Commonwealth aforesaid, and I hereby forbid all persons purchasing said land of said Leeds and Townsend, or either of them. Witness my hand and seal this 8th day of July, 1891. Mason O. Wheeler. [Seal.] ”
    The prayer was that it might be adjudged that the defendant had no interest in the land; that the plaintiffs might be allowed to convert the land into money, holding the proceeds subject to any trust which might exist in favor of the defendant; and that the defendant might be enjoined from interfering with such sale, and perpetually enjoined from setting up any title in the land.
    The answer set up that the plaintiffs purchased the premises through the defendant, who had control of a bond for a deed, both parties having in view that the defendant should be employed to manage the property, and for his services should have one fourth of the profits.
    Hearing before Allen, J., who was of opinion that the caveat did not constitute a cloud upon the plaintiffs’ title, ordered the bill to be dismissed without costs, and reported the case for the consideration of the full court.
    
      C. I Griddings, (H. W. Chaplin with him,) for the plaintiffs.
    
      R. Lund, for the defendant.
   Field, C. J.

The paper recorded in the registry of deeds did not purport to convey to the defendant any interest in the land. It was a claim on his part to an equitable interest, but there is nothing in the statutes which requires or permits such a paper to be recorded in a registry of deeds, and it ought not to have been received and recorded. The finding contained in the report of the case, “ that the defendant had no interest in the land,” appears to be correct. Under our decisions the bill was properly dismissed. Nickerson v. Loud, 115 Mass. 94. First African Methodist Episcopal Society v. Brown, 147 Mass. 296.

Bill dismissed, without costs.