Van Ness v. Boinay

• Citation: 101 N.E. 979,214 Mass. 340
• Parties: VAN NESS v. BOINAY et al.
• Decision Date: 19 May 1913
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

214 Mass. 340

101 N.E. 979

VAN NESS v. BOINAY et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

May 19, 1913

COUNSEL

Henry P. Brown, of Boston, for petitioner.

Ralph Coolidge Mulligan, of Boston, for respondent Boinay.

OPINION

DE COURCY, J.

This is a petition to register title to land situated on Pleasant street in Lexington. The petitioner acquired title on September 20, 1893, from Caroline Wellington by a deed containing the following description: 'Two certain parcels of land with the buildings thereon situated in the southeasterly part of said Lexington on either side of Pleasant street, otherwise known as the road leading to Waltham. * * * The first parcel, containing five and 17/100 acres, is bounded as follows: Beginning at the northeasterly corner of said premises on said street at land of Caroline Wellington; thence running southerly by said street four hundred sixty-nine feet to land of E. E. Burlingame; thence running westerly by land of said Burlingame six hundred twenty feet to land of Cornelius Wellington; then running northerly by said land last named three hundred seventy-eight feet to a corner at said land of Caroline Wellington; thence running easterly by said land of Caroline Wellington five hundred ninety-six feet to Pleasant street and the point of beginning.'

The exceptions raise no question affecting the second lot, which is on the southerly side of Pleasant street, and the respondent Boinay is not interested in the land adjoining the same. In view however of the petitioner's contention that the stone wall marking its northeasterly bound has been removed and is now some feet south of the former site, we may say that in the absence of the evidence the decision of the judge of the land court upon this question is conclusive. He finds as a fact that 'while the wall has been rebuilt, its location has been not materially changed.' R. L. c. 128, § 13; St. 1910, c 560, § 1.

The issue between these parties and raised by the exceptions relates to the location of the northeast and northwest bounds of the above described parcel. As to the northwest line the court ruled that 'the petitioner's land on the north did not extend beyond the Cornelius Wellington wall, and title to the strip of land north of the wall within the limits of the deed measurements did not pass to the petitioner upon its acquirement by her said grantor.' This was correct. By the terms of her deed the southwest line extended by land of Burlingame from Pleasant street 'to land of Cornelius Wellington,' and admittedly the wall indicated the bound of that land. Even in the absence of a wall or other visible boundary marking this line of the adjoining proprietor, such line is of itself a monument and controls the distances given. Pickman v. Trinity Church, 123 Mass. 1, 25 Am. Rep. 1; Percival v Chase, 182 Mass. 371, 65 N.E. 800, and cases cited; Goyette v. Keenan, 196 Mass. 416, 82 N.E. 427. If the measurements stated in the deed had fallen short of the cornelius Wellington wall, nevertheless the petitioner would have taken the land to that monument; but manifestly the fact that these measurements extend farther than the wall could give no title...