Salisbury v. Andrews
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action on the case for a nuisance to the plaintiff’s dwellinghouse, fronting westerly on Central court, in Boston, by narrowing and obstructing a passage called Central court, leading to the plaintiff’s house, and also for narrowing and obstructing a passage leading northerly from Central court along the front of the plaintiff’s house, and between it and the shed and fence of the defendant, it being a way appurtenant to the plaintiff’s house, for the passage of…
Read the full summary
This was an action on the case for a nuisance to the plaintiff’s dwellinghouse, fronting westerly on Central court, in Boston, by narrowing and obstructing a passage called Central court, leading to the plaintiff’s house, and also for narrowing and obstructing a passage leading northerly from Central court along the front of the plaintiff’s house, and between it and the shed and fence of the defendant, it being a way appurtenant to the plaintiff’s house, for the passage of persons and also for carrying wood, coal and other articles from Central court to the northwest corner of his house, and…
1Opinion of the Court
Shaw C. J.
afterward drew up the opinion of the Court. The question in this case turns upon the true meaning and construction of the deed from Andrews to Homes. The same individual owning two tenements adjoining, may carve out and *253sell any portion that he pleases, and the terms of the grant, as they can be learned either by words clearly expressed, or by just and sound construction, will regulate and measure the rights of the grantee. In construing the words of such a grant, where the words are doubtful or ambiguous, several rules are applicable, all however designed to aid in ascertaining…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Skow v. GoforthSupreme Court of Iowa · 2000
- James v. City of NewbergOregon Supreme Court · 1921