Brown v. Peaslee
| Decision Date | 17 March 1899 |
| Parties | BROWN v. PEASLEE. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Trespass quare clausum by Albert Brown against Daniel G. Peaslee. Both parties moved for judgment on a referee's report. Judgment for defendant.
The acts which the plaintiff claims constitute the trespass to his land were the construction and occupation by the defendant of a building thereon called the "Carriage House," and the dumping of dirt and sand around it.
Martin & Howe, for plaintiff.
Sargent & Niles and Fred H. Gould, for defendant.
The real controversy between the parties is as to the site of the divisional line between their lands. Both claim under deeds which necessitate the location on the ground of the boundaries described, and in addition the defendant claims by adverse possession. The referee to whom the cause was sent finds as a matter of fact that the defendant's deeds, given and recorded more than 20 years prior to the commencement of this suit, include the land in question; "that the defendant has been in the open, visible, notorious, exclusive, and adverse possession of the land described in his said deeds for more than twenty years before the date of the writ under color of title thereto; and that the defendant has had open, visible, notorious, exclusive, and adverse possession of the land upon which the carriage house stands for more than twenty years before the date of the writ, claiming under color of title." Either of these findings is conclusive. "The location on the ground of boundaries described in a deed is a question of fact." Tasker v. Cilley, 59 N. H. 575. And "possession under a deed, duly recorded, is constructive notice that he who is in possession is claiming adversely, it being the presumption that he is claiming under and according to his title." Forest v. Jackson, 56 N. H. 357, 362; Clark v. Clough, 65 N. H. 43, 78, 23 Atl. 526. By deed and by prescription the defendant's title is alike incontestably established.
The exceptions to evidence taken at the trial require no consideration. Judgment on the report for the defendant. All concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fagan v. Grady
...should not have been permitted to maintain their claim upon the basis of the deed, or adverse possession, or both. Brown v. Peaslee, 69 N.H. 436, 45 A. 234. It was open to them to claim title by conveyance, and if the deed should be found not to convey and full extent of the land occupied, ......
-
Town of Hampton v. Palmer
...1641, to be a 'common for oxen.' The location of the boundaries was a question of fact to be determined by the Trial Court. Brown v. Peaslee, 69 N.H. 436, 45 A. 234. In reaching a determination, it was entitled to consider the evidence offered by the plaintiff and objected to by the defenda......
-
Dame v. Fernald
...it is not in line with other authorities in this state and is not to be followed. Waldron v. Tuttle, 4 N. H. 371; Brown v. Peaslee, 69 N. H. 436, 45 A. 234; Barker v. Company, supra; Weeks v. Morin, 85 N. H. 9, 12, 153 A. The defendants' color of title gave the plaintiffs theoretical notice......
-
Moore v. Moore
... ... The defendant Jones is ready to pay the legacies, if necessary to protect his right to the demanded premises ... Walter S. Peaslee, for plaintiff ... Stone & Shannon and Edwin F. Jones, for defendants ... BLODGETT, C. J. For the purposes of this ... ...