Hale v. Joslin

Decided February 27, 1883

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1883-02-27

Bill in equity, filed November 29, 1880, alleging that, on August 7, 1873, Elijah Hale conveyed to the plaintiff by warranty deed a certain parcel of land in Stow, and on that day delivered the deed in trust to Edwin Whitney, one of the defendants, for the benefit and use of the plaintiff, as an escrow, and upon the express condition, and under the direction given by the grantor to Whitney, that, upon the grantor’s decease, Whitney should forthwith deliver the deed to the…

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““We think the evidence shows that Elijah Hale did not intend that the deed should he delivered until his death. He did not intend that the plaintiff should have any interest in the land, hut intended to keep in himself the dominion and control of it. It was in the hands of Whitney as a depositary for the grantor, and not as agent or trustee for the grantee.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Wright v. Bragg

Relies on Hatch v. Hatch · Wellborn v. Weaver · Lawton v. Fitchburg Railroad

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1883-02-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 1950

1 federal appellate · 13 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 →

W. Allen, J.

¶1We think the evidence shows that Elijah Hale did not intend that the deed should be delivered until his death. He did not intend that the plaintiff should have any present interest in the deed, but intended to keep in himself the dominion and control of it. It was in the hands of Whitney as a depositary for the grantor, and not as agent or trustee for the grantee. The act was intended to be in the nature of a testamentary act, which could be revoked at any time. As it was in fact revoked, it is not necessary to consider what effect it would have had if there had been no revocation. Fairbanks v. Metcalf, 8 Mass. 230, 237. Hatch v. Hatch, 9 Mass. 307. Rockwood v. Wiggin, 16 Gray, 402. McGrath v. Reynolds, 116 Mass. 566. Shurtleff v. Francis, 118 Mass. 154. Wellborn v. Weaver, 17 Ga. 267. Bill dismissed.