Calatro v. Chabut
| Decision Date | 05 March 1906 |
| Citation | 72 N.J.L. 458,63 A. 272 |
| Parties | CALATRO v. CHABUT. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error to Supreme Court.
Action by Elia Calatro against Mary Chabut. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
Fred Prout, for plaintiff in error. Charles J. Roe, for defendant in error.
MAGIE, Ch. The judgment brought before us by this writ of error was entered upon a postea disclosing that the learned justice who tried the issue in the cause, had directed the plaintiff below, who was the plaintiff in error, to be nonsuited. The bill of exceptions shows an exception to the allowance of nonsuit, duly taken and sealed, and under the assignments of error, that action is claimed to be erroneous and to require the judgment to be reversed.
The action was in ejectment, for the recovery of the possession of a tract of land in the town of Stirling, in Morris county, described as beginning at a point in the easterly line of Main avenue, distant northerly 58 feet from its intersection with the northerly line of Somerset street; thence running northerly along Main avenue 4 feet 4 inches; thence easterly and at right angles to the first course 102 feet; thence southerly parallel with the first course 4 feet 4 inches; and thence westerly parallel with the second course, 102 feet to the beginning. The plaintiff, in his case, put in evidence a deed to him which, as will be afterwards stated, may be construed as conveying to him a lot, in said town of Stirling, beginning at a point in the easterly line of Main avenue distant northerly 58 feet from its intersection with the northerly line of Somerset street (which, it will be observed, is the beginning corner of the lot possession of which was claimed by the declaration), thence running northerly along Main avenue 62 feet, which lot then extended easterly at right angles for a depth of 102 feet. In the evidence of the plaintiff, it appeared that he had inclosed a lot of 62 feet front, which did not include within the inclosure any part of the lot sued for, so that if he recovered the four feet and four inches he would have, in all, a frontage of 66 feet 4 inches. Thereupon the learned justice allowed a nonsuit, on the ground that plaintiff had shown, by his own proofs, that if he succeeded in recovering the land sued for, he would get more land than his deed called for. The ground thus relied on for defeating plaintiff's action is plainly untenable. It was entirely immaterial whether the plaintiff had inclosed a lot of 62 feet front, or whether he had, or had not, any title to the strip of 4 feet 4 inches on the north side thereof. The point of contest was as to the ownership or right of possession of the lot described in the declaration, and that, if settled for the plaintiff, would require a judgment, even though his inclosed land included land not described in his deed. On this ground the nonsuit was erroneous, and the judgment thereon must be reversed, unless upon the case disclosed by the bills of exception, the nonsuit can be supported upon other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blalock v. Johnson
...evidence may be considered. Hofer v. Carino, 4 N.J. 244, 72 A.2d 335; Maxwell v. Maxwell, 12 Wash.2d 589, 123 P.2d 335; Calatro v. Chabut, 72 N.J.L. 458, 63 A. 272; Grimes v. Jordan, Tex.Civ.App., 260 S.W.2d 220; Cities Service Oil Co. v. Dunlap, 5 Cir., 115 F.2d 720, 721. In the case last ......
-
Hofer v. Carino, A--100
...close, it is proper to resort to extrinsic evidence, which results in the issue becoming one of fact for the jury. Calatro v. Chabut, 72 N.J.L. 458, 63 A. 272, (E. & A. 1905). It is a general rule, in the interpretation of the descriptive words in deeds and grants, that courses and distance......
- Caret v. D. Wolff & Co.