Cross v. Pike
Supreme Court of Vermont
Tebsx'ass for the entrance upon the plaintiff’s close and cutting the grass. Heard on a referee’s report, December Term, 1886, POWERS, J., presiding. Judgment on the report for the defendants. The language used in the deed, — “ privilege of occupying,” etc., — is the common and ordinary language when a license or permission is granted. The words are inconsistent with the idea of absolute ownership.
Read the full summary
Tebsx'ass for the entrance upon the plaintiff’s close and cutting the grass. Heard on a referee’s report, December Term, 1886, POWERS, J., presiding. Judgment on the report for the defendants. The language used in the deed, — “ privilege of occupying,” etc., — is the common and ordinary language when a license or permission is granted. The words are inconsistent with the idea of absolute ownership. If they convey a title in fee, it is unsafe to attempt to grant privileges of use. Hale v. Harrows, 22 Yt. 240. It is a genera] principle that when property is granted all that is necessary to the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Taft, J.
The question in this case is whether the deed of Ephraim C. Parks to Daniel Pike conveyed a fee in the land occupied as a mill yard. The description in the deed is as follows: “A certain mill site, situated in Concord, described as follows : It being a certain piece or parcel of land now occupied by a saw-mill, or on which a saw-mill now stands, situated a few feet below the grist-mill, * * * meaning to convey the land on which the saw-mill now .stands, together with the mill thereon situate, with the privilege of occupying land in front of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Buckner v. HutchingsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892