Smith v. New York & New England Railroad
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close and erecting a fence thereon. Writ dated April 1, 1891. Trial in the Superior Court without a jury, before Dunbar, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows.
Read the full summary
Tort, for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close and erecting a fence thereon. Writ dated April 1, 1891. Trial in the Superior Court without a jury, before Dunbar, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows. The premises in controversy are situated on the east side of the defendant’s railroad near the Harvard Street station in the city of Boston, and consist of a strip of land lying between two lines, one of which is two rods and the other two and a half rods easterly of the centre line of the location of the railroad. The original location of the road at this point,…
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
This is an action of tort, in which the question is whether a strip of land half a rod wide on the east side of the defendant’s road-bed belongs to the plaintiff or to the defendant. The land is to the south of the lands in controversy in Bicknell v. New York & New England Railroad, 161 Mass. 428, and in Westcott v. New York & New England Railroad, 152 Mass. 465, and is on the east side of the road-bed. In this case, as in those, it is to be taken that the original location was five rods wide, and included the strip in question, and the only issue is whether it had been narrowed by…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Westcott v. New York & New England RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
- Bicknell v. New York & New England RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
3Cited by1 opinion
- Amee v. Boston & Albany RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912