Clary v. McGlynn
Supreme Court of Vermont
The land, on which the trespass was claimed to have been committed, consisted of a strip of land some seven or eight rods in width at its east end, and running to a point at its west end, seventy-two rods in length, and lying between the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s farm — the plaintiff’s farm lying north, and the defendant’s south,, of said strip. The cutting and taking away of said wood and timber was conceded.
Read the full summary
The land, on which the trespass was claimed to have been committed, consisted of a strip of land some seven or eight rods in width at its east end, and running to a point at its west end, seventy-two rods in length, and lying between the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s farm — the plaintiff’s farm lying north, and the defendant’s south,, of said strip. The cutting and taking away of said wood and timber was conceded. All of said wood and timber was cut on said strip, with the exception of one maple tree, which was, when cut, lying north of said strip, upon land conceded to belong to the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Barrett, J.
I. The line in dispute, according to the description in the deed, is from a corner, on a given course, a given number of rods, to a corner. The deed does not say whether those corners were marked on the land. If they were not marked, then they would be found by following the courses and-distances given in the deed. If they were marked, then they would be found 'by finding the monuments by which they were marked. The language of the deed is as consistent with their being marked, as not marked. It was therefore doubtful on that language,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Powers v. LeachSupreme Court of Vermont · 1850
3Cited by2 opinions
- Fullam v. FosterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1896
- Rugg v. WardSupreme Court of Vermont · 1892