Leach v. Bancroft
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Writ on Entry. The defendant pleaded non tenure to all except a triangular piece of land about one hundred and twenty-seven rods in length and eiglity-nine feet in width at the base. It appeared that the plaintiff owned the southerly part of lot No. 11, and the defendant the northerly part of lot No. 10, of the back lots in the Brenton farm, so called, in Litchfield, and that the west line of these lots is the east line of the home lots of Nos. 2,10, and 11 of that farm.
Read the full summary
Writ on Entry. The defendant pleaded non tenure to all except a triangular piece of land about one hundred and twenty-seven rods in length and eiglity-nine feet in width at the base. It appeared that the plaintiff owned the southerly part of lot No. 11, and the defendant the northerly part of lot No. 10, of the back lots in the Brenton farm, so called, in Litchfield, and that the west line of these lots is the east line of the home lots of Nos. 2,10, and 11 of that farm. A stake and stones close to a pine tree about midway across the lot east and west was acceded to at the trial by both…
1Opinion of the CourtBlodgett, J.
So far as appears, Quigg was a competent witness to prove where and what was the south-west corner bound of lot No. 11; and although the word in his testimony to which exception was taken may not have been the one best adapted to express his meaning, it is nevertheless quite apparent that he testified from knowledge, and not on supposition. It is a familiar mode of expression, with persons in general, to use the word suppose to express their understanding as to matters of which they have not absolute knowledge; and it probably was in this sense that the witness used it. He had the means of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Harris v. SmithSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1902