¶1Upon the allegations of the bill, the defendants Jackson and Byrnes have no title in the premises, and the other defendant is in possession under no other title than a lease from Jackson. The plaintiff’s remedy at law, by writ of entry against Jackson or Byrnes, or both of them, is therefore full, adequate and complete, and this bill cannot be maintained. Brewer v. Stevens, 13 Allen, 346. Pratt v. Pond, 5 Allen, 59. Metcalf v. Cady, 8 Allen, 587. Bassett v. Brown, 100 Mass. 355. Suter v. Matthews, 115 Mass. 253. Swamscott Machine Co. v. Perry, ante, 123, Bill dismissed.
119 Mass. 161
Boardman v. Jackson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided November 19, 1875
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1875-11-19
Bill in equity filed June 16, 1875, against Abraham Jackson, William M. Byrnes, and Ella S. Cahoon, alleging the following facts: On March 27,1873, the plaintiff was seised in fee simple of a certain parcel of land, with the dwelling-house thereon, situated on Ashland Street, in Boston.
Relies on Bassett v. Brown · Suter v. Matthews
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1875-11-19
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1904
3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →