Gould v. Eastern R. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 June 1886 |
| Citation | 142 Mass. 85,7 N.E. 543 |
| Parties | GOULD v. EASTERN R. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Petition for the appointment under chapter 360, Acts 1873, to assess damages for the taking of land in Charlestown, being the fee in First street, and passage-ways laid out between said First street and Second street, and between First street and Austin street. The plaintiff claimed through a deed from the Charlestown Wharf Company, dated October 19, 1844, to James Gould, and by a deed from said James Gould to the plaintiff, dated April 28, 1870. Thomas Nutter, assignee in insolvency of said James Gould, conveyed, March 22, 1852, all of said Gould's interest in said land to John S. Tyler, and said Tyler, by deed dated December 26, 1853, conveyed back to said James Gould all rights and interest conveyed to said Tyler by said Nutter. No question was made about the right of said James Gould so far as insolvency proceedings are concerned. The Charlestown Wharf Company, prior to its said deed to James Gould, was the owner in fee of a large tract of land, including said street and passage-ways, in said Charlestown. The lots of land abutting on said street and passage-ways were conveyed to divers parties by said company prior to the deed of October 19, 1844, to James Gould. Hearing in the supreme court, before MORTON, C.J., who reserved for the full court the question whether the various deeds of the Charlestown Wharf Company, prior to the deed to Gould, dated October 19, 1844, conveyed the fee in the said streets and passage-ways to the several grantees. If they did, the petition to be dismissed; otherwise commissioners to be appointed to assess damages for the taking of such lands as should be adjudged to have belonged to the plaintiff at the time of such taking. The deeds of the Charlestown Wharf Company referred to as conveying the land abutting on said streets and passage-ways to various parties prior to its said deed to James Gould, referred to the land “as lots on a certain plan,” which was recorded in the registry of deeds, and the land conveyed in each instance was described as bounded by the streets and passage-ways in question, and by certain other of the lots and streets delineated on said plan. There was also a clause in each deed, giving to the grantee “the right and privilege to pass and repass in, through, and over said last-mentioned passage-way in common with said corporation.”J.T. Wilson, for petitioner.
R. Olney, for respondent.
Where there is a plan showing a tract of land laid out into streets and passage-ways, blocks and lots, the blocks and lots are usually defined by lines which are coincident with the outer lines of the streets and passage-ways, and the dimensions and boundary lines of the blocks and lots are usually expressed in figures which exclude the streets and passage-ways. And when, in a deed of a lot of land, reference is made to such a plan, it is usual to give the dimensions of the lot as shown by the plan. But although, in such cases, the literal description in the conveyance does not in terms include the grantor's interest in the adjacent streets or passage-ways, yet...
To continue reading
Request your trial