The defendants appeal from a final decree awarding damages to the plaintiffs for loss sustained by them because of false representations made by the defendant corporation, through its president and treasurer, also a defendant, in connection with the sale to the plaintiffs of a building, used as a bowling alley, and its contents. The decree also dismissed the defendants' counterclaim. The judge made detailed findings of fact pursuant to G. L. c. 214, Section 23. The evidence is not reported. The applicable standard of review is stated in Kennedy v. Shain, 288 Mass. 458 , 459. The subsidiary facts found by the judge are mutually consistent, and support his ultimate finding that the statements of fact made by the defendants were material, were false, were known by the defendants to be false, were made with the expectation that the plaintiffs would rely upon them, and that the plaintiffs did rely upon them to their damage. It does not appear that the judge was in error in assessing damages.
Decree affirmed with costs.
[Note 1] Thelma A. DeCotis.
[Note 2] Jean B. Ippolito, Joseph C. Ippolito, and Laura G. Ippolito. The bill was dismissed against the latter two defendants.
The defendants appeal from a final decree enjoining them from entering upon a parcel of land (the locus) located in Somerset. The judge found that the plaintiffs had title to the locus through the adverse possession of their predecessors in title. The judge made findings of fact. The evidence is reported. The locus is of roughly triangular shape located between and contiguous to the property of the plaintiffs and the defendants, but separated from the defendants' land by a stone wall which has been in its present location for over forty-five years. There was evidence supporting the judge's findings of the following uses of the locus made by the plaintiffs' predecessors in title:
Between 1939 and 1944 the land was used in a relatively undeveloped state for the growing of fruit and rhubarb which were harvested each year. The area was cleared of poison ivy, the grass was mowed, and a child of one of the plaintiffs' predecessors in title played there. From 1939 to 1962 the area was regularly used for picnics and a place to sit out. Some time around 1945, in conjunction with the construction of a house and garage on the plaintiffs' land, a septic tank was installed in the locus and the area was filled, graded, and seeded. Thereafter it was used as part of the lawn of the house and was regularly maintained, at least until 1962. The requirements for acquisition of title by adverse possession are well established. LaChance v. First Natl. Bank & Trust Co. 301 Mass. 488 . Shoer v. Daffe, 337 Mass. 420 . Ottavia v. Savarese, 338 Mass. 330 . Kershaw v. Zecchini, 342 Mass. 318 . The facts found met those requirements.
Decree affirmed with costs.