Woodward v. Nims
| Decision Date | 11 January 1881 |
| Citation | 130 Mass. 70 |
| Parties | Harding G. Woodward v. Lucius Nims |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Argued September 21, 1880
Franklin. Writ of entry to foreclose a mortgage upon the entire tract of land shown on the plan, a copy of which is printed in the margin, [*] and marked A and B. Plea nul disseisin, and a disclaimer of title as to lot B. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the tenant, to this court on appeal, on agreed facts, the material parts of which appear in the opinion.
Judgment affirmed.
A. De Wolf, for the demandant.
G. M Stearns & C. C. Conant, for the tenant.
The question in this case is one of boundary, and a careful examination of the deeds affords a conclusive answer to the claim of the demandant.
In 1852 Paul Hildreth became the owner of both the lots delineated on the plan, and marked A and B respectively. Lot A was conveyed to him by the boundaries, courses and distances shown upon the plan; the sixth boundary being upon lot B, which is described as land formerly of Obed Hastings. Lot B was afterwards conveyed to him by the boundaries as they appear on the plan, and its boundary on lot A is described in the deed to be southerly from the road in a range of two oak trees and the line of Hildreth's land to land of Wells. These trees are marked upon the plan. The boundary line between the two lots is thus definitely determined by permanent monuments.
Quintus Allen seems to have acquired title to these lots, for in 1856 he conveyed them to James M. Munson in one deed by separate descriptions; wherein it appears that each lot is bounded on the other upon a line in the range of the two oak trees, and reference is made to the deeds to Paul Hildreth mentioned above. The description of lot A contains the same boundaries courses, and distances as in the deed to Hildreth, and as shown upon the plan, except that the fifth boundary "W 17 [degree] N. 10 r. 201." is omitted. No question is made that Munson became the owner of both lots, for each party claims, under him, the parcel in dispute between them.
Munson made three mortgages on these premises. The first was a mortgage of lot A to Geo. P. Metcalf, and the description in the deed follows the description in the deed from Allen omitting, as in that deed, the fifth boundary, and making reference to the deeds to Hildreth, and the deed from Allen. This mortgage has been paid and discharged. In all these descriptions of lot A, it is said to contain five acres and forty-two rods. Munson seems to have improved the property, and built a mill thereon, and it became known by the name of the Munson Meadow Machine Mill property; for in 1866 he made a second mortgage of lot A to Jas. P. Felton; and the description of the land included therein becomes important. It is described as "the real estate and property, situate in Greenfield aforesaid, and known as Munson's Meadow Machine Mill property, being fully described in a mortgage from Munson to Metcalf, recorded in the Franklin registry, book 215, page 118, to which reference is hereby made for description, together with all the machinery, fixtures, tools and implements used in the prosecution of the Machine Business which now are or may be used in said shop." It contains no other description, and is subject to the mortgage to Metcalf. This mortgage was assigned, and the assignee, under a power contained therein, sold the premises by auction, and they were duly conveyed in September 1877 to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rix v. Peters
...the lots and where a call is plainly omitted by mistake the courts will supply the omission. 12 Ballard Real Est. 79; 10 Id. 159. See 130 Mass. 70; 17 N.Y. 620; 83 S.W. 2 Devlin on Deeds (3 ed.), §§ 850, 629a, 1012-13, 1031a; 2 S.W. 47; 43 Id. 378; 30 Id. 704; 27 Mo. 478; 48 Id. 194; 82 Id.......
-
Whittier v. Montpelier Ice Co.
...a construction of the deed, and the instrument will be read as if it were so expressed. Com. v. Roxbury, 9 Gray (Mass.) 451, 490; Woodward v. Nims, 130 Mass. 70; Ray v. Pease et al., 95 Ga. 153, 22 S. E. 190; Serrano v. Rawson, 47 Cal. 52; Kerr v. De Lancy (Ky.) 91 S. W. 286; Alexander v. L......
-
Chapman v. Hamblet
...the intention of the parties would be defeated by its adoption. Haynes v. Young, 30 Me. 557; Sanborn v. Rice, 129 Mass. 387; Woodward v. Nims, 130 Mass. 70; Davis v. Rainsford, 17 Mass. 210; Percival v. Chase, 182 Mass. 371, 65 N. E. 800. By following this boundary line until the end of the......
-
Park v. Wilkinson
...Sec. 7, page 45. But even the omission of one full boundary does not make a deed uncertain. Thompson v. Thompson, 21 S.W. 1085; Woodard v. Nines, 130 Mass. 70; Morse Rogers, 118 Mass. 572; Locht v. Austin, 13 So. 838; Brand v. Damroy, 19 Am. Dec. 176. But even if the deed were void for unce......