Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

47 Me. 500

Thomas v. Record

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 1, 1859

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1859-07-01

Reported by Goodenow, J. Writ op Entry, to recover possession of a parcel of land in tbe town of Hebron. The demandant claims under a levy, made on April 18, 1857, of an execution in Ms favor against Samuel T. Record. He also put into the case an office copy of a deed from the defendant to said Samuel T. Record, which deed is of the date of August 30 th, 1849.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1859-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently August 1982

5 state decisions

1018591860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

¶1The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Rice, J.

¶2The defendant was the original owner of the land demanded. On the 13th day of August, 1849, he conveyed the same to Samuel T. Record, by deed of warranty. That deed contains the following provision immediately following the description of the land conveyed, — “I give the said Samuel T. Record this deed on the following conditions, to wit, the said Samuel T. Record shall maintain and support myself, the said Perez T. Record, and Asenath Record, wife of the said Perez T. Record, for and during the term of their natural lives, and shall, at all times, furnish them with suitable and proper support, and shall treat them with kindness, and, in all respects, conduct towards them as is the duty of á son to his parents.”

¶3There are still further conditions, not, however, material to this issue. The deed contains no provision for reentry.

¶4The demandant claims by virtue of a levy upon a portion of the estate against Samuel T. Record.

¶5Does the language in the deed constitute a condition ? There can be no doubt that such is the fact. In the language of the Court, in Gray v. Blanchard, 8 Pick., 284, — “ The words are apt to create a condition; there is no ambiguity, no room for construction; and they cannot be distorted so as to convey a different sense from that which was probably the intent of the parties.” The conditions are consistent with the *504nature of the grant; not incompatible with any rule of law; not requiring any thing immoral, and not inconsistent with public policy. Nor is there any evidence of fraud or collusion between the defendant and Samuel T. Record, in the case as presented.

¶6It is usual in the grant, to reserve in express terms to the grantor and his heirs a right of entry for breach of condition ; but a grantor, or his heirs, may enter and take advantage of a breach, though there be no such clause of entry in the deed. 4 Kent’s Com., 123; Gray v. Blanchard, 8 Pick., 284.

¶7The evidence offered was competent and pertinent. The action will, therefore, stand for trial.

Tenney, C. J., and Appleton, Goodenow, Davis, and Kent, JJ., concurred.
/47/me/500 · .json · Public domain