Goodyear v. Shanahan

M in 1801 conveyed to B a piece of land of “about seven acres,” bounded west on a highway. In 1824 the Farmington canal was constructed along the westerly side of the tract, the center of the canal being substantially coincident with the east line of the highway. In 1836 B conveyed the land to W, describing it as the land he bought of M, Containing about seven acres, and bounded west on the Farmington canal. The canal had been since abandoned, . but it was then in operation and the reversionary interest in the land occupied by it was regarded as of no real value. Held that the west line of the land thus conveyed was the center of the canal and not its east bank. Such an expression in a deed is to be so interpreted as to give effect to the inten. tion of the parties. In ascertaining this intention the situation of the property and the surrounding circumstances are to be considered in connection with the language of the deed. The fact that one of the heirs of B was now claiming to own the strip between . the east bank of the canal and the highway, held to be of no pertinence.

Ejectment ; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County, and tried to the court on the general issue before Robinson, J. The court found the following facts: The premises in question are a part of a tract of land in the town of New Haven which was conveyed by warranty deed December 2d, 1801, by Eli Mix to Stephen Ball, and in the deed is described as follows: “A certain piece of land situated in said New Haven, containing seven acres, be the same more or less, and is bounded south on William Love’s land, north on highway, east on Abraham Bradley’s land, west on highway.” In the year 1824 the Farmington Canal Company had constructed and put in operation their canal along the west border of this land, and at the part thereof in controversy the canal was partly on this land and partly on the highway, the highway line running not far from the center of the canal. The canal was abandoned in 1848. On the 10th of March, 1836, Stephen Ball conveyed to Nathan C. Whiting the whole, or a part, of this tract ot land, describing it as follows: “About seven acres, more or less, being the same which I bought of Eli Mix, bounded westerly by the Farmington canal, north by land formerly owned by Gen. David Humphrey, deceased, easterly by land of Dr. Eli Ives, and southerly by land of the heirs of William Love, deceased.” November 18th, 1842, Nathan C. Whiting conveyed to Benjamin M. Sherman the whole, or a part, of the tract, describing it as follows: “Bounded north by the heirs of Humphreys, deceased, west by Dixwell street, south by Hoffman street, east by land formerly owned by Dr. Eli Ives.” June 20th, 1843, Benjamin M. Sherman conveyed to Cliauncey Goodyear, the plaintiff, the whole, or a part, of the tract, describing it as follows: “ Bounded north by land of the heirs of Humphreys, deceased, west by Dixwell street, south by Hoffman street, east by land formerly owned by Dr. Eli Ives.” November 10th, 1846, Chauncey Goodyear conveyed to the New Haven & Northampton Company a part of the land, describing it as follows: “North on land of the Humphreys heirs, east on my own land, south on land formerly owned by Henry W. Edwards, but now owned by the said New Haven & Northampton Company, and west on the Farmington canal, and containing about one acre and seven-tenths.” February 7th, 1873, the railroad company conveyed to said Goodyear a part of the tract by him conveyed to them, describing it as follows: “Northerly by Goodrich street, southerly by land of Henry Munson, trustee for Jacob A. Tyler, westerly by land of said Goodyear, and easterly by land this day quit-claimed to said corporation by said Goodyear, from which it is separated by a line drawn parallel with, and fifty feet distant westerly from, a line drawn midway between the iron- rails of the track of the railroad of said corporation.” The north line of Goodrich street is substantially the same line as the southerly line of the land of the Humphrey heirs. The southerly boundary, “ by land of Henry Munson, trustee,” is below the land of “ heirs of William Love,” or, its equivalent, “ Hoffman street.” The land referred to as “westerly by land of said Goodyear” is the land formerly of the “heirs of William Love,” which the plaintiff owned February 7th, 1873. A further westerly boundary, on Dixwell street, was omitted by mistake. That portion of the original Stephen Ball tract adjoining Dixwell street, which was afterwards substantially used by the Farmington Canal Company, was about four hundred and ninety-eight feet long, and seventy feet in width at one end and ninety feet at the other. < Stephen Ball died in the year 1842, leaving a will in which ■ this tract of land was not. mentioned, but in which Mary Ball, John Ball, and Frederick Ball were made residuary devisees and legatees. In April, 1857, Frederick Ball gave a quitclaim deed of the land lying west of the east line of the old canal, and including the demanded premises, to Leverett Ailing. In October, 1867, the widow of John Ball quit-claimed the same premises to Ailing, and through the heirs of Ailing the defendant claimed title by deed dated May 10th, 1873, under which deed the defendant fenced in and took possession of the premises in dispute. . . The plaintiff claimed that the legal effect of the deed from Stephen Ball to Nathan C. Whiting was to convey to Whiting the entire tract conveyed to Ball by Mix, and that the boundary on the canal was at the point in question a boundary on Dixwell street. The defendant claimed that the Ball deed bounding Whiting on the canal bounded him on the cast edge of the tow-path on the east bank of the canal. The court sustained the claim of the plaintiff and held that the legal title to the land in dispute was vested by the terms of the deeds in the plaintiff. The plaintiff testified that the deed of February 7th, 1873, included the demanded premises, and that he owned at the date of the deed a strip of land two hundred feet long lying between the land of the New Haven & Northampton Company and Dixwell Avenue, north of the land of H. Munson, trustee, and that this was the land referred to in the deed in the boundary described as “west on the grantee,” a further boundary of “west by Dixwell Avenue ” having been omitted by mistake. On cross-examination he was asked if the widow of one of the Ball heirs did not claim to own this two hundred feet strip. This question was objected to, the plaintiff only claiming from the above evidence to identify the land referred to as bounded “west on the plaintiff,” and that the real ownership of the land was immaterial, so long as the two hundred feet strip was the land referred to as bounded west on the plaintiff. The question was excluded, and exception taken. And the defendant offered no evidence to show, and made no claim, that there was any other land answering to the call of “west on land of the plaintiff,” save this strip of two hundred feet, and offered no evidence to show that the Ball heirs did in fact own this strip. Upon these facts the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant moved for a new trial for errors in the rulings and decision of the court.