Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1896

Commonwealth v. Mullen

Commonwealth v. Mullen
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided June 15, 1896 · Morton
166 Mass. 377; 44 N.E. 343; 1896 Mass. LEXIS 147

Commonwealth v. Mullen

Opinion of the Court

Morton, J.

The exceptions do not state whether the defendant was or was not the owner in fee of the land on which the building stood. If she was such owner, the building could not be regarded as a fixture, but would pass by deed as a part of the realty, and was therefore, in the strict sense of the word, a tenement, or something which could be holden by tenure.

Even if personal property, it was occupied by the defendant as a dwelling, and in the modern use of the word was properly described as a tenement. Commonwealth v. McCaughey, 9 Gray, 296. Commonwealth v. Clynes, 150 Mass. 71. Dashwood v. Ayles, 16 Q. B. D. 295, 301.

Exceptions overruled.

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