Sutherland v. Jackson
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Care, for obstructing a passage way, to the injury of the plaintiff. The following diagram may be of use in illustrating the points discussed. The plaintiff purchased lots No. 29 and 30, by the plan being part of the fifty acre Emery land. In his deed, lot No. 30 was described as commencing at the distance of 25 feet from the south line of the Emery lot.
Read the full summary
Care, for obstructing a passage way, to the injury of the plaintiff. The following diagram may be of use in illustrating the points discussed. The plaintiff purchased lots No. 29 and 30, by the plan being part of the fifty acre Emery land. In his deed, lot No. 30 was described as commencing at the distance of 25 feet from the south line of the Emery lot. The plan exhibits a space 50 feet wide, reserved for a street, on the south of No. 30, paving been laid, half on the Emery lot, and half on the adjoining lot. The deed described the lots No. 29 and 30, as being each 54|- feet wide, and the…
1Opinion of the CourtWells, J.
One of the grounds, upon which the plaintiff claims to maintain this action, is that by the deed of the proprietor under which he holds, he obtained title to the centre of the street or way. In this State a grant of land bounded on a highway carries the fee to the centre of it, if there be no words to show a contrary intent. Johnson v. Anderson, 18 Maine, 76. The exact width and length of the two lots are specified in the deed, and it does not appear, that lot numbered thirty extends into the street, allowing to it the full width named in the deed. But the lots are conveyed by a *83plan, and by…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Lankin v. TerwilligerOregon Supreme Court · 1892
- Bell v. ToddMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Arnold v. BoulaySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1951
- Fine Line, Inc. v. BlakeSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1996
- Hultzen v. WithamSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1951
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.