Phelps v. Webster
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close in North-field. Writ dated August 6, 1880. Answer: 1. A general denial. 2. That the acts alleged to have been committed by the defendants were done by them, as a committee of a school district in Northfield, in a place laid out by the original proprietors of the town in 1684 as a highway, and that in 1728 the said proprietors made a grant to the plaintiff’s grantor of land abutting upon the highway, no part of which was…
Read the full summary
Tort, for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close in North-field. Writ dated August 6, 1880. Answer: 1. A general denial. 2. That the acts alleged to have been committed by the defendants were done by them, as a committee of a school district in Northfield, in a place laid out by the original proprietors of the town in 1684 as a highway, and that in 1728 the said proprietors made a grant to the plaintiff’s grantor of land abutting upon the highway, no part of which was included within the highway. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Colburn, J., the judge ruled that the action…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, C. J.
The records of the original proprietors of Squakheag, now the town of Northfield, show that in 1684 said proprietors laid out a highway ten rods wide, which has ever since existed, marked by fences on each side, and which is the road to which the controversy in this case relates. The report of the committee upon which this action was taken is as follows : “ May 28,1684. Wee hose names are under wrighten have laved out the high waves of Squawkheag town plot 10 rods wide through the town and a highway one the north side of Mikah Mudg horn lott & the south side of John Alexander horn lott ten…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Gaylord v. KingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
- Greer v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1885