Morse v. Rogers
Decision Date | 23 October 1875 |
Citation | 118 Mass. 572 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Parties | Charles P. Morse & another v. Thomas M. Rogers |
[Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]
Worcester. Tort for the disturbance of an easement. Trial in the Superior Court, before Dewey, J., who, after a verdict for the plaintiffs, reported the case to this court in substance as follows:
The defendant owns a lot of land with a block of buildings thereon in Worcester, on the corner of Main and Pleasant Streets, on the northerly side of Pleasant Street. The plaintiffs own the lot on the northerly side of Pleasant Street, next westerly of the defendant's lot. Between the two lots is a passage way, extending from Pleasant Street between the plaintiffs' and the defendant's lots, and further north to Pearl Street. The boundary of said passage way was in controversy.
Charles Paine formerly owned all the lots marked from 1 to 9 inclusive on the plan, a copy of which was put in evidence and is printed in the margin, [*] and all the land covered by the passage ways on said plan, and in 1865 sold them at auction to various parties, and on December 1, 1865, made conveyances of the several lots to the purchasers. The plaintiffs and the defendant took their respective titles from Paine's grantees, and the questions raised in this report arise on the deeds from Paine. The deed from Paine of the plaintiffs' lot bounds it as follows:
The deed from Paine of the defendant's lot contained the following as the description:
Each of the other deeds of the other lots referred to said passage way as a "passage way fifteen feet in width running from Pearl Street to Pleasant Street, the easterly line of which passage way is the westerly line of Calvin Foster's lot, upon which his brick block stands, and a line drawn in extension of said westerly line to said Pleasant Street," and each of said deeds contained the phrase, "Together with a right in common with others, to whom estates have been conveyed by me, over the above named passage way as laid down and shown in said plan."
The distances given in each of the Paine deeds correspond with the figures on said plan. Before the action was brought, the defendant built a brick block, four stories high, on his lot and extending back on the northerly line of Pleasant Street ninety-eight feet and three inches from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Holmes v. Barrett
...of Long Wharf, 5 Pick. 131, 138;Clark v. Munyan, 22 Pick. 410, 416,33 Am. Dec. 752;White v. Bliss, 8 Cush. 510, 512;Morse v. Rogers, 118 Mass. 572, 578.Temple v. Benson, 213 Mass. 128, 132, 100 N. E. 63;Van Ness v. Boinay, 214 Mass. 340, 101 N. E. 979;Webber v. Cox, 256 Mass. 595, 153 N. E.......
-
Yanish v. Tarbox
... ... govern, and cannot be controlled or effected by parol ... evidence. Linscott v. Fernald, 5 Greenl. 496; ... Bell v. Morse, 6 N.H. 205; Clark v. Baird, ... 9 N.Y. 183; Clark v. Wethey, 19 Wend. 320 ... Chas ... N. Bell and George E. Budd, for ... distances. 3 Washb. Real Prop. p. 631; Haynes v ... Young, 36 Me. 557; Keenan v ... Cavanaugh, 44 Vt. 268; Morse v ... Rogers", 118 Mass. 572; Cunningham v ... Curtis, 57 N.H. 157; Watson v ... Jones, 85 Pa. 117; Muhlker v ... Ruppert, 124 N.Y. 627, (26 N.E. 313.) ... \xC2" ... ...
-
McMahon v. Blanchard
...that not measurements, but monuments when certain, or capable of being made certain, are to govern in the construction of deeds. Morse v. Rogers, 118 Mass. 572;Stefanick v. Fortona, 222 Mass. 83, 85, 109 N. E. 878. In the light of all the material circumstances, the easterly passageway may ......
-
Marvel v. Regienus
...It does not appear in the instant case that the line of the cleared land as it existed in 1905 could not be found, see Morse v. Rogers, 118 Mass. 572, 578, because the auditor has been able to find it. There is nothing in his report which convinces us that he did not have sufficient evidenc......