Baldwin v. Wallace
Decision Date | 07 May 1929 |
Citation | 146 A. 90 |
Parties | BALDWIN et al. v. WALLACE. |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Tranferred from Superior Court, Grafton County; Sawyer, Judge.
Suit by Marianne Perry Baldwin and another against James Burns Wallace. Transferred to the Supreme Court. Decree for plaintiffs.
Bill in equity to remove a cloud from the title to real estate, and for an accounting for wood and timber taken from the premises. The case was sent to a master, who found the facts and recommended a decree that the cloud be removed and that the plaintiffs recover the damages, which were agreed to be $200. The questions of law arising upon the report were transferred without ruling by Sawyer, C. J.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Stanton Owen, of Laconia, and Fred S. Wright, of Woodsville, for plaintiffs.
Jewett & Jewett, of Laconia, for defendant.
This proceeding is brought to remove a cloud from the title to a strip of land now or formerly a part of a highway in the town of Canaan, and for an assessment of damages for trespass thereon. The locus lies between two lots owned by the plaintiffs. The defendant claimed through a deed of it, prior in date to the plaintiffs' deed, but not recorded until after the plaintiffs took and recorded their deed, in ignorance of the defendant's claim.
In his argument here, the defendant has not relied upon any claim of title by deed, but: defends solely upon the proposition that the plaintiffs have not shown title. At the trial before a master, there was controversy as to whether the highway, laid out in 1795, was legally discontinued in 1861. Upon this issue the master found in favor of the plaintiffs. But he also ruled "that the defendant's liability is unaffected by the existence or nonexistence of a highway of which the locus now or once formed a part." If this ruling is sound, there is no occasion to consider the questions raised upon the issue of discontinuance.
It is elementary that deeds of the lots on the two sides of the road, and boundeo thereby, would convey the grantor's title in the highway. Goodeno v. Hutchinson, 54 N. H. 159, and cases cited; Woodman v. Spencer, 54 N. H. 507; Manchester v. Hodge, 74 N. H. 468, 69 A. 527. Title to this strip of land, subject only to the public easement, if one existed, was established.
This title was a valuable right, susceptible of vindication as against intruders. As to everything except the public right of passage and the incidents thereto, the land was the property of the plaintiffs. Lyford v. Laconia, 75 N. H. 220, 72 A. 1085, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1062, 139 Am. St. Rep. 680. They have a right to recover for the defendants' trespass thereon and to be paid the value of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Musgrove v. Parker
...be an answer in criminal proceedings, is a matter not now presented for consideration. Bill dismissed. All concurred. 1 See Baldwin v. Wallace, 84 N. H. 71, 146 A. 90; Drury v. Sleeper, 84 N. H. 98, 146 A. 645; McCauley v. Brooks, 84 N. H. 207, 147 A. 898; Calley v. New Hampton Literary Ins......
-
Shearer v. Raymond
...the strip of land underlying the highway remains in the possession of the fee owner, subject to the public easement. Baldwin v. Wallace, 84 N.H. 71, 72, 146 A. 90 (1929) ; see also Duchesnaye v. Silva, 118 N.H. 728, 732, 394 A.2d 59 (1978) ("[A] conveyance of property bounded by a street or......
-
Claremont Sch. Dist. v. Governor
...of courts of equity, having jurisdiction, to administer all relief which the nature of the case and facts demand." Baldwin v. Wallace , 84 N.H. 71, 72, 146 A. 90, 91 (1929) (quotation omitted); see N.H. Donuts, Inc. v. Skipitaris , 129 N.H. 774, 783, 533 A.2d 351, 355 (1987) (it is the hist......
- Swan v. Bailey