Marsh v. Marshall
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Trespass, for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close, and cutting and carrying away his trees. Plea, the general issue. The plaintiff’s right to recover depended upon the construction of the defendant’s deed, which was the earliest title shown to the disputed premises. By that deed, the defendant’s boundary was “ a stake and stones by the bridge, thence running the southerly side of the cart path, to a stake and stones at the corner of Davis’s meadow.”
Read the full summary
Trespass, for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close, and cutting and carrying away his trees. Plea, the general issue. The plaintiff’s right to recover depended upon the construction of the defendant’s deed, which was the earliest title shown to the disputed premises. By that deed, the defendant’s boundary was “ a stake and stones by the bridge, thence running the southerly side of the cart path, to a stake and stones at the corner of Davis’s meadow.” It appeared that there was a cart path from “ the stake and stones at the bridge,” (an undisputed bound,) to a point at or near “ the…
1Opinion of the CourtGilchrist, C. J.
The question in this case is, where is the true line between the land of the plaintiff and the land of the defendant.
The beginning is at an undisputed corner, the stake and stones by the bridge ; thence the line runs on the southerly side of the cart path, to a stake and stones at the corner of Davis’s meadow.
The jury having found the corner of Davis’s meadow to be the point marked “ Lost corner,” the question is, how the line should run from the bridge to this lost corner.
*306The line between these points should be a straight line, unless there be something to control it and cause it to deviate…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Breck v. YoungSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1841
- Proprietors of Enfield v. DaySuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1841
3Cited by1 opinion
- Leigh v. LaPierreSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1973