Thornell v. City of Brockton

• Decision Date: 24 February 1886
• Parties: THORNELL v. CITY OF BROCKTON.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

141 Mass. 151

6 N.E. 74

THORNELL v. CITY OF BROCKTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Plymouth.

February 24, 1886

Writ of entry to recover a parcel of land in Brockton. At the trial in the superior court, before Aldrich, J., the demandant put in his deed from Edwin H. Kingman to one Cornelius Creeden and others, and a deed from Isaac Kingman and others to said Creeden, and proved and put in his plans and called one Howland, a surveyor. The tenant then called several witnesses, and put in copy of the will of Cornelius Creeden, its deed, a copy of the inventory of the estate of said Creeden, and rested its case. It was admitted that both parties claimed under Cornelius Creeden, and that he had a good title to the demanded premises. The tenant, when the evidence was all in, requested the court to rule that upon the evidence the demandant could not maintain his action which the court refused to do. The tenant then requested the court to rule that the boundary or monument at the north-westerly corner of the land conveyed by Cornelius Creeden to the demandant is a lane or traveled way, and must be such a lane or traveled way as conforms to all the descriptions thereof in the demandant's deed, to-wit: It must be a lane or traveled way which, at the time of the execution and delivery of said deed, would be met by following the line of Patrick Mahoney, westerly, and before leaving said Mahoney's land. It must be a lane or traveled way which then extended southerly from Grove street. It must be a lane or traveled way which at that time did not extend so far south as Spring street. If the jury find that at the time of the execution and delivery of the deed of Cornelius Creeden to the demandant, the lane or traveled way called "East Main Street" did extend all the way from Grove street, through to Spring street, they must find a verdict for the tenant. Upon the evidence the demandant cannot maintain his action;--which several rulings the court refused to give. The court having stated the issues presented by the pleadings, and that the parties disagree both as to the monuments and length of lines by which the locus is bounded, instructed the jury that it is a general rule in the construction of deeds, where the deeds describe land by courses and distances, and by monuments, the monuments, if known and established, or can be made certain, must govern and control both the courses and distances; but if the monuments themselves are in dispute, then, before the jury can properly apply the rule, they must first determine what the true monuments are; and, in this case, it would be their duty, after carefully reading all the deeds under which the respective parties claim title, to examine and consider all the other evidence, including the plans submitted in the case, bearing upon the question as to the true monuments named in the demandant's deed; and, having determined that question in that manner, it would be their further duty to limit the demandant's boundary lines by the monuments so determined, whether the lines so limited were longer or shorter than those called for in the demandant's deed. Neither party excepted to the instructions as given. The jury returned a verdict for the demandant. To the refusals to rule as requested the tenant alleged exceptions. The deed of Cornelius Creeden to the demandant contained the following description:

"All that lot of land in said North Bridgewater bounded, beginning at Spring street, at the corner of land of Catharine Toomey thence northerly, by land of said...