Watson v. Raley
| Decision Date | 03 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 225,225 |
| Citation | 250 Md. 266,242 A.2d 488 |
| Parties | Ralph WATSON et ux. v. Harry C. RALEY et ux. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Walter B. Dorsey, Leonardtown, for appellants.
Charles A. Norris, Leonardtown, for appellees.
Before HAMMOND, C. J., and MARBURY, BARNES, FINAN and SINGLEY, JJ.
This appeal is taken from an order of ejectment in the Circuit Court for St. Mary's County. The parcel of land in dispute was part of a larger tract sold at a trustee's sale on June 29, 1962. Theodore Russell died leaving, inter alia, land acquired from Louis R. Springer, by deed dated October 5, 1909; land acquired from Louis R. Springer, by deed dated August 25, 1919, and land acquired from J. Parran Crane, et ux., by deed dated March 18, 1910. There were several heirs and as a result of a partition suit the court appointed a trustee to conduct a sale of these and other Russell lands. The advertisement of sale stated that the property was to be divided into four parcels, 'A,' 'B,' 'C' and 'D.' It referred to parcel 'B' as being the same property conveyed to Theodore D. Russell by the deed from Louis R. Springer, et ux., dated August 25, 1910; to parcel 'C' as being the same land conveyed to Theodore D. Russell by deed from J. Parran Crane, et ux., dated March 18, 1910; to parcel 'D' as being the same property conveyed to Theodore D. Russell by Louis R. Springer, et ux., by deed dated October 5, 1909.
At the sale, the trustee produced a map which divided the tract into four separate parcels, denoted by the letters 'A' through 'D.' This map, known as the Koval map, was apparently based on a land use map; in fact, the trustee announced at the sale that the map was not a true representation of the property lines, but was being used for convenience in locating the various parcels. Raley, et ux., purchased a 35 acre parcel of land, which for all intents and purposes was that described in the Springer deed of August 25, 1910, designated as parcel 'B' on the Koval map. Watson, et ux., purchased the property contiguous to the Raley tract and designated as that conveyed to Russell by the Crane deed of March 18, 1940 (designated as parcel 'C' on the Koval map), and also the property conveyed to Russell by the Springer deed dated October 5, 1909.
On two occasions prior to the sale, Mr. Raley visited the property which he was interested in purchasing for the purpose of viewing the property lines. On these occasions the property lines and monuments were pointed out to him by either John J. Russell or his brother, Theodore D. Russell, who were familiar with the tract and who had a beneficial interest in the proceeds of the trustee's sale. Of special significance to this case is a wire fence and stake line which Raley was told was the southeast boundary of the parcel he was interested in purchasing. Theodore D. Russell, who was apparently the son of the grantee in the Springer deeds (although the record does not expressly so indicate), testified that the lines he showed Raley were the same as those shown to him by his father. The Koval map, however, showed the southeast boundary of Parcel 'B' to be a straight line, whereas the fence and stake line shown to Raley by the Russells prior to the sale would have extended the boundary several acres more to the southeast. The area in dispute, and the subject of this ejectment proceeding, lies between the Raleys' southeast boundary as it appears on the Koval map and as it was shown on the site to Raley. This action was instituted when the Watsons cut timber on the disputed area.
Compounding the confusion regarding the property line is the description in the deed from the trustee to the Raleys. The 'being' clause in this deed not only refers to the tract conveyed as 'Part of Bean's purchase or Hickory Bottom, and being the same conveyed to Theodore D. Russell by deed from Louis R. Springer, et ux., dated August 25, 1910 * * *;' but also recites, 'this parcel is designated as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bright v. Lake Linganore Ass'n, Inc.
...from the whole deed given effect"); Needy v. Middlekauff, 102 Md. 181, 184, 62 A. 159 (1905). The Court in Watson v. Raley, 250 Md. 266, 268-69, 242 A.2d 488 (1968), in which an inconsistency in a clause of a deed was alleged, noted, "[T]he only rule of construction to which the Court adher......
-
White v. Pines
...part of the analysis and may consider parol or other extrinsic evidence to discover the grantor's intent. See Watson v. Raley, 250 Md. 266, 268-69, 242 A.2d 488, 489-90 (1968). Id. at 500, 712 A.2d 1072. Thus, if the deed itself contains an express grant or denial of riparian rights, the de......
-
Gwynn v. Oursler
...part of the analysis and may consider parol or other extrinsic evidence to discover the grantor's intent. See Watson v. Raley, 250 Md. 266, 268-69, 242 A.2d 488, 489-90 (1968). The deed in this case is completely silent about piers or wharves, and makes no mention at all about riparian righ......
-
Chester v. Gilchrist
...in a clause of a deed, the intent of the parties must be determined by the underlying facts and circumstances. Watson v. Raley, 250 Md. 266, 268-69, 242 A.2d 488, 489-90 (1968). See Dept. of Forests & Parks v. George's Creek Coal & Land Co., 250 Md. 125, 132-33, 242 A.2d 165, 169, cert. den......