Case ID: mass_91/html/0370-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Metcalf, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Patrick Riley vs. John T. Smith.
    The court cannot say, on a demurrer or motion to dismiss, that the following description of the premises demanded in a writ of entry is insufficient: “A certain parcel of land, with the buildings thereon, situate in Boston, and bounded southerly by Eliot Street, twenty feet; westerly on a passage way six feet and nine inches in width, sixty-one feet eleven inches; northerly on a passage way three feet wide, nineteen feet nine inches and easterly by a line through the centre of the brick partition wall, sixty-one feet two inches; with the appurtenances thereto belonging.”
    Writ of entry, to recover possession of “ a certain parcel of land, with the buildings thereon, situate in said Boston, being lot numbered seven, on a plan made by A. Wadsworth, dated April 29, 1845, recorded with Suffolk deeds, lib. 550, fol. 254; and bounded southerly byxEliot Street, twenty feet; westerly on a passage way six feet and nine inches in width, as laid down on said plan, sixty-one feet eleven inches; northerly on a passage way three feet wide, shown on said plan, nineteen feet nine inches; and easterly on lot eight, on said plan, by a line through the centre of the brick partition wall between the houses on lots seven and eight, sixty-one feet two inches, with the appurtenances thereto belonging.”
    The tenant filed a demurrer to the declaration, and also a motion to dismiss the action, on the ground that the description of the demanded premises was insufficient. The demurrer and motion were overruled in the superior court, and judgment ren dered for the demandant; and the tenant appealed to this court
    
      J. D. Thomson, for the tenant.
    
      J. L. English, for the demandant, was not called on.
   Metcalf, J.

The tenant, in support of his demurrer and motion to dismiss the action, relies on what was said by Mr. Justice Wilde, in Atwood v. Atwood, 22 Pick. 287, namely, that “ when lands are demanded, the description of them must be so certain that seisin may be delivered by the sheriff without reference to any description dehors the writ.” Assuming this to be so, yet we are of opinion that the description in the demandant’s writ is sufficiently certain, without including therein the references to Wadsworth’s plan. Omitting those references, the description is thus: “ A certain parcel of land, with the buildings thereon, situate in Boston, and bounded, southerly by Eliot Street, twenty feet; westerly on a passage way six feet and nine inches in width, sixty-one feet eleven inches ; northerly on a passage way three feet wide, nineteen feet nine inches; and easterly by a line through the centre of the brick partition wall, sixty-one feet two inches; with the appurtenances thereto belonging.” The court cannot say that the sheriff could not deliver seisin of the premises, thus described, without reference to any further description thereof dehors the writ. The addition of insufficient matter of description to a description that is sufficient without it does not render it insufficient.

Judgment, overruling the demurrer and the motion to dismiss, affirmed.