Cilley v. Childs

• Decision Date: 06 January 1882
• Citation: 73 Me. 130
• Parties: JONATHAN P. CILLEY v. JAMES CHILDS. JAMES CHILDS in equity v. ALEXANDER MONTEITH and another.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

73 Me. 130

JONATHAN P. CILLEY v. JAMES CHILDS.

JAMES CHILDS in equity v. ALEXANDER MONTEITH and another.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

January 6, 1882

ON REPORT of facts agreed.

The first of these actions is a writ of entry to recover about thirty acres of land on Merchants' Island situated in Deer Island Thoroughfare.

The second action is a bill in equity to restrain the plaintiff in the first action from prosecuting the same and to reform the the deed under which the defendant in that action claims title to the locus.

The material facts are fully stated in the opinion.

H. A Tripp, for Cilley.

The deed from Monteith to Childs conveyed nothing. It is impossible to ascertain the intention of the parties from the deed, and it fails. 3 Wash. R. P. (3d ed.) 344. In Commonwealth v. Roxbury, 9 Gray 490, three sides of the land were given and the question was as to finding the fourth, and the remarks of Chief Justice SHAW, were made upon very different facts from those existing in the present case. Pierce v. Faunce, 37 Me. 67, differs materially from the case at bar.

C. A Spofford, for Childs, cited: Commonwealth v Roxbury, 9 Gray 490; 3 Wash. R. P. (4th ed.) 406; Pierce v. Faunce, 37 Me. 67.

BARROWS J.

These cases are reported together, this court to make such disposition of both, as shall be found proper upon the admitted facts.

The first is an action at law, to recover possession of a parcel of land containing about thirty acres, and constituting the northerly and north westerly part of an island called Merchants' Island, situated in Deer Isle Thoroughfare. It was conveyed by one Matthews, by deed dated November 21, 1865, duly recorded, to one Monteith, and was therein described as " beginning at the head of the cove on the northeast side of the island, thence west northerly by land of Anthony Merchant, to a blue rock at the head of the field; thence southerly, by land of said Merchant, to a marked tree on the shore on the southwest side of the island; thence northerly, easterly, and southerly, by the shore to the bound begun at, containing about twenty-five acres."

Cilley has the legal title to it by deeds dated December 11, 1878, from creditors of Monteith, who levied on it as his property April 12, 1869, unless it passed from Monteith to Childs by his deed December 26, 1866, recorded January 1, 1867, in which the description runs thus: " a parcel of land on Merchants' Island … butts and bounds as follows: commencing at the head of the cove at the north side of said island, running to a blue rock in the stone wall; thence from said blue rock southwest, southerly, to a marked spruce tree, said lot containing thirty acres, more or less."

It is admitted that Childs, before receiving this deed, bargained with Monteith for the same parcel of land which Monteith had of Matthews; that both of them supposed the deed given by Monteith to Childs, was a valid conveyance thereof; that it would have been so if it had contained the following additional words which were in the deed from Matthews to Monteith, " thence northerly, easterly, and southerly, by the shore, to the bounds begun at; " that the line laid down in Monteith's deed to Childs, cuts the island into two parts, one containing about thirty acres, the other about one hundred and ninety; that Childs owned the land adjoining this parcel when he received this deed, and thereupon forthwith went into the occupation of the locus, and has lived on it ever since; that the levying creditors at the date of their levies, and Cilley, at the date of his deed from them, respectively knew of the existence of the deed to Childs, and that he was in possession of the land claiming it under said deed. Cilley's writ of entry is dated July 21, 1879.

On October 21, 1880, Childs brought the other suit, which is a bill in equity against Cilley and Monteith, based on the same facts, asking that Cilley may be restrained from prosecuting his action at law, and that the deed may be reformed so as to declare more completely the intention of the parties to it, and for general relief. We are to deal with the admitted facts which the parties present, and are not called upon to consider questions as to their admissibility if any such could have been raised.

Moreover it is well settled law, that a deed shall not be held void for uncertainty, but shall be so construed wherever it is possible as to give effect to the intention of the parties and not defeat it; and that this may be done whenever the court placing itself in the situation of the grantor at the date of the transaction, with knowledge of the surrounding circumstances and of the force and import of the words used, can ascertain his meaning and intention from the language of the conveyance thus illustrated. Greenleaf's Cruise, vol. IV, p. 306; ed. of 1850, tit. XXXII, chap. XX, note to § 24. And this, even where it becomes necessary to reject parts of the description given as false and inconsistent. Vose v. Handy, 2 Me. 322, 330, citing Worthington v. Hylyer, 4 Mass. 196; Jackson v. Clark, 7 Johns. 217. To the same effect are Wing v. Burgis, 13 Me. 111, and Vose v. Bradstreet, 27 Me. 156, 171.

In the deed of Monteith to Childs, there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory. Whatever ambiguity there is in the description of the lot intended to be conveyed, arises from incompleteness, and not from any false call. It must be supposed that Monteith intended to convey...