Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Saxer
Williams Bros. Inc. of Marshfield v. Peck
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
A parcel of land (parcel A) serving as a cranberry bog contained easement rights and access onto another parcel (parcel B). The easement rights included (a) a right of way; (b) a right to take sand; (c) a right to build bog houses; and (d) a right to cut trees if the trees shaded the cranberry bog. Subsequently, parcels A and B were combined under a single owner. However, the parcels were then split again, parcel A being conveyed to George and Marjorie Peck (Defendants) and parcel B conveyed to Williams Brothers, Inc. of Marshfield (Plaintiff). The deed conveying the property to Defendants included the easement rights listed in a prior deed. The deed conveying parcel B to Defendants did not list the easement rights. Additionally, Defendants’ parcel was registered and they possessed a certificate of registration. In Massachusetts, the purpose of registration was to provide a method of making titles to land certain and to protect the certificate holder. Defendants removed sand and cut trees on the Defendants property as provided for by the easement. Defendants sued Defendants, contending that any easement over its land had been terminated due to common ownership of both parcels many years before. The land court judge held in Plaintiff’s favor and ordered the easement language struck from the Peck’s certificate of title. Defendants appealed.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.