Massachusetts General Laws
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183, § 15 (2026)
Easements, privileges and appurtenances belonging to granted estate
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MAmalegislature.gov (official)
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Section 15. In a conveyance of real estate all rights, easements, privileges and appurtenances belonging to the granted estate shall be included in the conveyance, unless the contrary shall be stated in the deed, and it shall be unnecessary to enumerate or mention them either generally or specifically.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1929–2026 · leading case: Adams v. Plan. Bd., 833 N.E.2d 637 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005).
Adams v. Plan. Bd., 833 N.E.2d 637 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005). “164, §§ 280, 281, provides in part that “[t]he owner or owners of real estate abutting on a private way who have by deed existing rights of ingress and egress upon such way or other private ways shall have the right by implication to place, install or construct in, on, along,…”
Cheever v. Graves, 592 N.E.2d 758 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992). “G. L. c. 183, § 15. Kenney v. Marino, 350 Mass.”
Murphy v. Olsen, 826 N.E.2d 249 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005). “G. L. c. 183, § 15. 11 The question is whether the reservation by the trustees of the pedestrian easements in the deeds to lots eight and seven of the beach subdivision reserved the rights to the beach and to Sandy Way for the trustees’ remaining inland land.”
Labounty v. Vickers, 225 N.E.2d 333 (Mass. 1967). “We need not consider the merits of their arguments on this issue for we are of opinion that the master’s conclusions are adequately supported by the other evidence.”
Murphy v. Mart Realty of Brockton, Inc., 205 N.E.2d 222 (Mass. 1965). “Once the easement was created it passed to succeeding grantees by virtue of G. L. c. 183, § 15, 1 whether or not it was mentioned in the deeds.”
Taylor v. Lassell, 353 N.E.2d 677 (Mass. App. Ct. 1976). “After a jury waived trial the judge found that in 1961 the Lassells owned both 15 Shore Road and 6 Valley Street and that they intended by implication that subsequent owners of 15 Shore Road would have an easement over the 6 Valley Street property for the purpose heretofore…”
Canton Highlands, Inc. v. Searle, 398 N.E.2d 759 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980). “In view of this, and because there is no language in the deed from Carey to Searle excluding rights over way X, the judge correctly ruled that Searle acquired rights in the way by force of the provisions of G. L. c. 183, § 15. 4 3. Rights of the Mahoneys.”
Brassard v. Flynn, 224 N.E.2d 221 (Mass. 1967). “There still remains the question of what rights the defendants may have in the easterly half of Curtis Street under the terms of the easement granted by the plaintiffs to the Colbys in 1961, which easement passed to the defendants Flynn by deed, as well as by G. L. c. 183, § 15,…”
Walter Kassuba Realty Corp. v. Akeson, 271 N.E.2d 660 (Mass. 1971). “Rights so created, they assert, passed to them pursuant to G. L. c. 183, § 15. *727 1. It is not disputed that the respondents have rights of way over the.”
Bergh v. Hines, 692 N.E.2d 980 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998). “Mass.R.A.R 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass.”
Clark v. Mead Realty Grp., Inc., 854 N.E.2d 972 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006). “We have examined the plaintiffs’ contentions based upon G. L. c. 183, § 15; G. L. c. 183, § 17; and G.”
Deery v. Foster, 447 N.E.2d 1251 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983). “G. L. c. 183, § 15. Kenney v. Marino, 350 Mass.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.