Gaylord v. King
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort in two counts. The first count was for removing shade and ornamental trees, the property of the plaintiff, standing in front of her residence in East Streét, Amherst. The second count was for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close, and converting the same trees to the defendant’s use. Both counts were for the same cause of action.
Read the full summary
Tort in two counts. The first count was for removing shade and ornamental trees, the property of the plaintiff, standing in front of her residence in East Streét, Amherst. The second count was for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close, and converting the same trees to the defendant’s use. Both counts were for the same cause of action. Writ dated September 8, 1884. Answer: 1. A general denial. 2. That the defendant was one of the selectmen of Amherst, who had the care of said street under authority of the town, and who caused the travelled road and path to be widened that he, acting as…
1Opinion of the CourtC. Allen, J.
The first question which we have considered is, whether the plaintiff has shown a title in herself to the soil of that part of the highway where the trees stood; and we think she has not. She relies, primarily, upon the grant by the town in 1788, and upon the rule of law, now well established and familiar, that grants of land bounding on a way will be presumed to extend to the centre of the way, if the grantor owns the soil thereof, and if a clear intention to the contrary is not to be gathered from the language of the deed, construed in the light of the existing circumstances. In the present…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Phelps v. WebsterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
3Cited by3 opinions
- Smith v. FurbishSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1894
- Chase v. City of LowellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Keefe v. Cleveland City RailroadCuyahoga County Common Pleas Court · 1901