Hunter v. Heath

• Decision Date: 25 October 1877
• Citation: 67 Me. 507
• Parties: DAVID L. HUNTER v. FRANCIS E. HEATH et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

67 Me. 507

DAVID L. HUNTER v. FRANCIS E. HEATH et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

October 25, 1877

ON EXCEPTIONS.

WRIT OF ENTRY, dated July 16, 1875. The premises claimed are nearly triangular and described substantially as follows: Beginning at a hemlock tree in the south line of I 1, marked with the survey mark of Charles Hayden, for the southeast corner of the Eaton tract and the southwest corner of Check lot No. 1 I 1; thence northerly, at right angles with the south line of I 1, to the north line of said I 1; thence easterly on said north line to the twenty-five mile stream, so called; thence by the centre of said stream southerly to the south line of said fifteen mile lot I 1; and thence westerly on said south line of I 1, to the point begun at.

Plea general issue, with a disclaimer of one portion and a claimer, so to speak, of another portion, making the whole rectangular, as follows:

(Image Omitted)

TABLE

Beginning in the southerly line of the fifteen mile lot I 1, according to Hayden's survey, at a hemlock tree supposed to be marked with the survey mark of Charles Hayden, surveyor, as and for the corner of the Eaton tract, so called, and the plaintiff's lot, thence running north and at right angles with said southerly line of the fifteen mile lot to the southerly line of the Carver lot, being the old Winthrop and Dickinson tracts, on I 1, thence easterly on the south line of the last named lot to the west line of Check lot No. 1, I 1; thence southerly on the west line of Check lot No. 1, I 1, to the southerly line of fifteen mile lot I 1; thence westerly on the southerly line of the fifteen mile lot, I 1, to the point begun at; and as to the residue of the land described in the plaintiff's writ the defendants disclaim all title or possession.

It was conceded at the trial that the western boundary of Check lot No. 1, as shown by the plan, was the division line between the parties. The contention was as to the position of this line on the face of the earth, the plaintiff contending that C. D. was this line; and that it would give the defendants more by some twenty-four rods in length than all the land their deeds called for, referring to the ancient Hayden plan of 1812 and applying the scale thereto, from Sebasticook river easterly. The defendants, without denying this, also relied upon the Hayden plan, which appears to have been based upon a sufficiently liberal survey to give all parties the quantities called for and leave a larger surplus than the disputed strip, and contended that the early deeds under which the plaintiff claimed, admitted to have been loosely drawn, must depend for their location upon the Hayden plan to which they refer, and that applying the scale from Unity pond westerly, the line A. B. answered all the calls of the plaintiff's deeds as to quantity and derived support from the lines of occupation, which correspond not only with the lines on the check lots in range I 1, but with the extension of such of those lines as extended through range I 2, and formed opposite sides of check lots in that range as shown on the plan.

There was among much documentary and oral evidence introduced on each side, evidence of admissions of defendants' grantors tending to show that the line was as the plaintiff claimed; and also evidence, on the part of the defendants, of an attempted reference and consequent settlement of the line between the parties in 1871. The verdict was for the defendants; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions, which sufficiently appear in the opinion.

J. Baker, for the plaintiff.

E. F. Webb, for the defendants.

APPLETON C. J.

This is a real action, in which the demandant can only recover on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of that of the tenant.

The case comes before us upon exceptions and upon motions to set aside the verdict as against evidence, for newly discovered evidence and for tampering with the jury.

(1) The first exceptions alleged relate to the effect of the declarations of the grantors of the tenants. After alluding to them, the presiding justice proceeds as follows: " Before you will give any effect to these declarations, you will see that they are not the declarations of these defendants; they are the declarations of their grantors; they are not conclusive in the matter, but they are evidence tending, as it is claimed, if true, really to establish or confirm the claim made by the plaintiff; but you must be satisfied that those statements were made, that you have a true account of them, because the law acts upon the presumption that a party would not make false statements in disparagement of his own title."

The declarations of a party adverse to his own interest are obviously entitled to grave consideration. But they may be made under mistake. They are not conclusive. They do not constitute an estoppel. The declarations of a party may be strong evidence of a boundary, but if erroneous, they do not pass a title.

This instruction is favorable rather than adverse to the demandant. If true, the jury were told, the declarations...