Bean v. Bachelder

Deed. Plan. Survey. When a plan has been made to delineate an actual surve3r upon the surface of the earth, and a deed describes the lot by its number “ according to the plan, ” the actual survey rather than the plan fixes the location and boundaries of the lot.

On exceptions. Trespass quare clausum. The plaintiff was the owner of lot number four and the defendant was the owner of lot number five, range three in Greenfield. The question in controversy involved the location of the line between those two lots. The verdict was in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant alleged exceptions to the ruling stated in the opinion. cited: Williams v. Spaulding, 29 Maine, 112 ; Heaton v. Hodges, 14 Maine, 66; Thomas v. Patten, 13 Maine, 329; Esmond v. Tarbox, 7 Maine, 61; Pike v. Dyke, 2 Maine, 213. The case involves the construction of these words in the defendant’s deed: " Lot No. 5 in the 3rd range in Greenfield according to Herrick’s plan.” That was the only description. In removing any and all doubt as to the true meaning of the description, our first recourse is to the rule, which all the authorities confirm, that the meaning must be derived or established by the language of the deed itself. No extraneous aid can be called in except in the single case of latent ambiguity. Here there is none such and the rule must have its legitimate course. This rule itself settles all doubt and all question. A second 'rule applicable to this case is so well established as to admit of no doubt, that where a plan is mentioned to establish or help define the premises conveyed, it becomes a part of the deed. The plan not only makes a part of the deed but a controlling part and is as if incorporated into it, a part of its very corpus, not only establishing lines, but conditions, restrictions and appurtenant rights not even alluded to in the deed. Such cases as Bartlett v. Bangor, 67 Maine, 460; Farnsworth v. Taylor, 9 Gray, 162 ; Boston W. P. v. Boston, 127 Mass. 374, are very impressive illustrations of our position. Counsel further cited: Lincoln v. Wilder, 29 Maine, 169; Davis v. JRainsford, 17 Mass. 207 ; Allen v. Allen, 14 Maine, 387 ; Walker v. Boynton, 120 Mass. 349; Baxter v. Arnold, 114 Mass. 577 ; Magoun v. Lapham, 21 Pick. 135 ; Erskine v. Moulton, 66 Maine, 276 ; Stewart v. Davis, 63 Maine, 539 ; Wellington v. Murdough, 41 Maine, 281; Loring v. Norton, 8 Maine, 61; Eaton v. Knapp, 29 Maine, 120; Props. Ken. Pur. v. Tiffany, 1 Maine, 219 ; Ghesley v. Holmes, 40 Maine, 546; Murdoch v. Chapman, 9 Gray, 158; Morgan v. Moore, 8 Gray, 321; see also : Ames v. Hilton, 70 Maine, 36 ; Knowles v. Toothaher, 58 Maine, 172; Brown v. Gay, 3 Maine, 126. The following cases are not in conflict; it is a different thing to have a plan simply " referred to”; here the conveyance was " according to the plan”; Pike v. Dyke, 2 Maine, 213 ; Ripley v. Berry, 5 Maine, 24; Esmond v. Tarbox, 7 Maine, 61; Heaton v. Hodges, 14 Maine, 66; Thomas v. Patten, 13 Maine, 329; Williams v. Spaulding, 29 Maine, 112. In other states and courts the principle now contended for is uniformly recognized. Dodd v. Burchell, 1 Hurlstone & C. 113 ; R. R. Co. v. Skinner, 9 Mo. 189 ; 49 Mo. 100 ; Twogood v. Hoyt, 42 Mich. 609; Augustine v. Brett, 15 Hun. 395 ; Powers v. Jackson, 50 Gal. 429 ; Doe v. R. R. Co. 67 N. C. 413; Roberts v. Robertson, 53 Vt. 690; Noonan v. Lee, 2 Black, 499; M’lver v. Walker, 4 Wheat. 444.