Keysar v. Covell

The clause in the deed of Willey, relating to the use of the water of the spring, designated Young as the person to whom, by express agreement, the water of the spring was given, and he was a sufficient party to the deed to take the thing granted. The true construction of this clause in the deed is found by ascertaining the intention of the parties (Houghton v. Pattee, 58 N. H. 326, Morse v. Morse, 58 N. H. 391, Corwin v. Hood, 58 N. H. 401); and nothing is plainer than Willey’s intention to convey to Young and his heirs the water of the spring and the right of maintaining an aqueduct from it…