City of Manchester v. Hodge
Decision Date | 03 March 1908 |
Citation | 69 A. 527,74 N.H. 468 |
Parties | CITY OF MANCHESTER v. HODGE et al. |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Stone, Judge.
Action by the city of Manchester against Jeremiah Hodge and another for obstructing a private way. Transferred from the superior court upon an agreed statement of facts. Case discharged.
The plaintiff city and the defendants derive title from the Amoskeag Manufacturing Company. In 1841 that corporation deeded a tract of land to the city for a public cemetery, the material part of the conveyance being as follows: "Thence westerly to Willow street; thence northerly on the easterly line of Willow street thirteen hundred feet, said line being parallel to and two hundred and seventy-five feet easterly of the east line of Elm street." In 1873 the corporation deeded land to the defendant Hodge, the material part of the conveyance being "easterly on Willow street, there measuring two hundred and twenty feet," and in 1892 deeded land to the Head & Dowst Company, who are also defendants, the material part of the last conveyance being as follows: "Thence northerly parallel with said Elm street by said westerly line of Willow street four hundred and ninety feet, to the southerly line of Summer street." The way in dispute is that part of Willow street lying between the land of the city and that of the defendants. It has never been laid out as a highway, and the defendants have occupied and claimed to own it ever since they purchased their respective tracks. In 1843 the Amoskeag Company made a plan of this section of the city, which shows Willow street substantially as claimed by the plaintiffs.
Taggart, Tuttle, Burroughs & Wyman, George A. Wagner, and David Cross, for plaintiff. Burnham, Brown, Jones & Warren, for defendants.
The deed to the city bounds the cemetery on the west by the easterly line of Willow street, and says that it is a line "parallel to and two hundred and seventy-five feet easterly of the east line of Elm street." If this language is given its ordinary meaning, Willow street had been surveyed at that time. The defendants contend, however, that since the case does not show when the Amoskeag Company surveyed this part of their land, it must be held that the parties intended to bound the cemetery on the west by a line two hundred and seventy-five feet easterly of the east line of Elm street. There is no evidence to sustain this contention. As has...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fagan v. Grady
...of a wooden stake was established at that time. There was no evidence that an 'iron hub' was not later placed there. See Manchester v. Hodge, 74 N.H. 468, 69 A. 527. There was affirmative evidence that no search was made for an existing monument, when the iron pipe was set in 1947. Evidence......
-
Loud v. Brooks
...91 Ga. 659, 18 S. E. 370;Hamilton v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 124 Ill. 235, 15 N. E. 854;Stark v. Coffin, 105 Mass. 328;Manchester v. Hodge, 74 N. H. 468, 69 A. 527; Miner v. New York, 37 N. Y. Super. Ct. 171; Bissell v. New York Central R. Co., 23 N. Y. 61;Clark v. City of Providence, 10 R......
-
City of Rochester v. Marcel A. Payeur, Inc., 2016–0212
...be lost to an individual by adverse use." Windham v. Jubinville, 92 N.H. 102, 104, 25 A.2d 415 (1942) ; see also Manchester v. Hodge, 74 N.H. 468, 470, 69 A. 527 (1908) ; Thompson v. Major, 58 N.H. 242, 244 (1878). However, each of these cases involved adverse possession of public highways ......
-
Harrington v. City of Manchester
...was not lost by the adverse use of the southerly half of the street by the appellants and their grantors for 20 years. Manchester v. Hodge, 74 N. H. 468, 470, 69 Atl. 527; Collins v. Howard, 65 N. H. 190, 192, 18 Atl. 794; Thompson v. Major, 58 N. H. 242; State v. Company, 49 N. H. 240, 6 A......