Court Opinion

ID: 6411555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 11:53:04.856484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:23.491062
License: Public Domain

Bigelow, J.
The deed of Samuel Tufts, under which the defendant claimed title and justified the act of trespass alleged in the declaration, cannot be construed to convey an estate in common and undivided with the other owners of the Robert Pottei lot. There is nothing to indicate that the grantor intended to convey an undivided interest in the whole lot. On the contrary, it does not purport to convey the whole interest of the grantor, nor an undivided interest in the entire tract. It is only a grant of sixty four rods, parcel of a larger lot. He owned a certain portion or fraction of the whole lot. This he does not grant, but he conveys sixty four rods, and describes it as part of a lot, in the whole of which he was the owner of an undivided interest. The deed does not come within that class of cases where the owner of an entire tract conveys a certain part of the whole. In such cases there is no difficulty in construing the conveyance as a grant of an undivided interest in the proportion which the quantity granted bears to the whole parcel.
What was then the effect of the deed ? A conveyance in severalty of sixty four rods in a close containing a larger quantity and owned in common with others, without boundaries or other means to designate or fix the location of the land intended to be granted, if valid as against all persons except other owners in common of the whole close, cannot take effect until the grantee has entered and taken possession of the quantity of land conveyed by the deed, and thus made certain the part of the close which he claims to hold in severalty under his grant. Until such entry and possession, it is wholly uncertain what part of the close is comprehended within the grant, and the deed cannot take effect as to any specific part. There was no proof of any such entry in the present case upon the land where the trespass was committed. The defendant had no title to enter as a tenant in common, and he proved no entry upon any portion of the land to hold in severalty.

Exceptions overruled.