Crawford v. Roloson
| Decision Date | 05 June 1926 |
| Citation | 256 Mass. 331,152 N.E. 319 |
| Parties | CRAWFORD v. ROLOSON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Land Court, Barnstable County; C. T. David Judge.
Petition for registration of land by Nita M. Crawford against Robert M. Roloson. Decree for petitioner and respondent excepts. Exceptions sustained.
See, also, 149 N. E. 707.
F. E. Crawford and E. Irving Smith, both of Boston, for petitioner.
F. Rackemann and H. M. Davis, both of Boston, for respondent.
This is a petition for the registration of the title of the petitioner to an estate in Barnstable including a narrow parcel of land running to Cotuit Bay. The respondent owns the adjoining shore property to the northeast of this strip of upland and shore. The exceptions state that the principal question in controversy was as to the location of the boundary line between the respondent's land and the irregular shaped strip of the petitioner's land running to the shore at low-water mark as described in a deed from David Nickerson and John Dottridge to Charles R. Codman dated November 7, 1878. At the date of this deed Dottridge and Nickerson owned the estates of both parties, Codman being the predecessor in title of the respondent. The line in dispute is described in the deed to Codman as follows:
‘Beginning at the northwest corner at a point 25 yards from the nearest point where land of said Codman adjoins land of Slade and thence running south 21°>>>> west 281 feet; south 55° east 192 feet; south 19°>>>> west 61 feet; south 62 1/2° east to the sea.’
It was found by the land court that the starting point of this description had for many years been marked by a stone monument, and that:
‘The deed lines as determined by the courses and distances starting from the stone monument to the north of the windmill can be located upon the ground with mathermatical exactness.’
But notwithstanding this express finding the trial judge ordered a decree establishing the boundary line in a different location, although using the same bound as the starting point. There was evidence that the deed line had been fixed by a parol agreement of the predecessors in title of the parties, and that it warranted a finding of the running of the line accordingly. The respective owners in title doubtless could orally agree, that the deed line should be shifted so that each owner assented to a parol gift to the other of such portion of his own land as lay on the other side of the new...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Gingras
...348 Mass. 251, 260, 203 N.E.2d 85 (1964). Contrast Iverson v. Swan, 169 Mass. 582, 583, 48 N.E. 282 (1897); Crawford v. Rolson, 256 Mass. 331, 336, 152 N.E. 319 (1926). Such acts of adjoining land owners are given 'great weight.' Fulgenitti v. Cariddi, 292 Mass. 321, 324--325, 198 N.E. 258 ......
-
Gora v. Neapolitan Ice Cream Co.
...v. Seretto, 254 Mass. 159, 149 N. E. 707;West v. Johnson, 254 Mass. 161, 149 N. E. 710;Crawford v. Roloson, 254 Mass. 163, 149 N. E. 707,152 N. E. 319;Bentley v. Ward, 116 Mass. 333. The defendants contend that they are excused for their failure to conform to the statutory mandate by these ......
-
Hirsch v. Fisher
...135; Reynolds v. Boston Rubber Co., 160 Mass. 240, 245, 35 N. E. 677;Temple v. Benson, 213 Mass. 128, 100 N. E. 63;Crawford v. Roloson, 256 Mass. 331, 336, 152 N. E. 319;Queenin v. Blank, 268 Mass. 432, 435, 167 N. E. 680, and cases cited. The description in the deed to the plaintiffs is dr......
-
Crawford v. Roloson
...final decree, were refused, and she brings exceptions. Motion to dismiss exceptions denied, and exceptions overruled. See, also, 256 Mass. 331, 152 N. E. 319.F. E. Crawford and E. I. Smith, both of Boston, for petitioner.F. Rackemann and H. M. Davis, both of Boston, for respondent.RUGG, C. ......