Sweetland v. Stetson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close, and pulling up and removing a fence. The defendant claimed title in the land on which the fence stood, and at the trial in the Superior Court before Putnam, J., trial by jury being waived, put in evidence certain deeds and oral testimony.
Read the full summary
Tort for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close, and pulling up and removing a fence. The defendant claimed title in the land on which the fence stood, and at the trial in the Superior Court before Putnam, J., trial by jury being waived, put in evidence certain deeds and oral testimony. The judge found as a fact that the plaintiff was in possession of the land on which the fence stood, and described in her writ, at the time of the alleged trespass, and that the defendant upon the whole evidence had failed to establish her title to the land in controversy, and gave judgment for the…
1Opinion of the CourtGray, C. J.
This is an action between the owners of adjacent lots of land. Each has as much land as her deed calls for. The controversy is as to a strip one foot wide on which the fence between the two lots stands. To whom this belongs depends upon the application of the description in the deeds to the land. It is true that the boundary upon the land of a third person makes that land a monument, but where the monument is is a question of fact. The judge of the Superior Court has found as facts that the defendant proved no title to the strip in question, and that the plaintiff was in possession thereof.…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Colton v. OnderdonkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Holden v. LynnSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Uliasz v. GilletteMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1970
- Ames v. McCamberMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Fowler v. OwenSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1895
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.