Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1869

Tisdale v. Brabrook

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided October 15, 1869 · Chapman

102 Mass. 374

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Daley v. Daley (Mass. 1941)
May v. New England Railroad (Mass. 1898)
Northcutt v. Eager (Mo. 1896)
Boston Manufacturing Co. v. Burgin (Mass. 1874)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Chapman, C. J.

This petition is brought under the Gen. Sts. c. 134, § 49, requiring the respondents to show cause why they should not bring an action to try their title to the real estate described, which is in possession of the petitioner. The respondents answer by disclaiming any present estate or right of entry in the premises. They admit that the petitioner is seised of an estate for the life of Sarah A. Brabrook, who is living, and claim only an estate in remainder after her death. This is a sufficient disclaimer; for the only writ which the respondents can bring to try their title is a writ of entry in conformity with the provisions of the Gen. Sts.. c. 134. In such an actior *375they must prove not only an estate, but a right of entry. § 7. Nor has it ever been true that a person having an estate in remainder after a tenancy for life could maintain an action at law to try his title till after the termination of the estate for life. Jackson on Real Actions, 17. Wells v. Prince, 4 Mass. 64. Wallingford v. Hearl, 15 Mass. 471. Until then, there was no disseisin or intrusion upon which he could declare.

C. A. Holbrook, for the petitioner. P. E. Aldrich, for the respondents.

Petition dismissed, with costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.