Home/Supreme Court of Rhode Island/Healey v. Babbitt

Healey v. Babbitt

14 R.I. 533, 1884 R.I. LEXIS 50
CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island
DecidedJuly 5, 1884
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 14 R.I. 533 (Healey v. Babbitt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Healey v. Babbitt, 14 R.I. 533, 1884 R.I. LEXIS 50 (R.I. 1884).

Opinion

MattesON, J.

This is an action of trespass and ejectment for possession of a lot of land, on the westerly side of Charles Street, in Providence. The lot in question is the portion of what was formerly Greenland Street lying east of the Providence and Worcester Railroad and between it and Charles Street, and includes the entire width of the strip. Greenland Street, or the portion of it to which the suit relates, was laid out wholly on land of the Philip W. Martin estate, its northerly line being identical with the northerly line of that estate.

Silvanus G. Martin and Edward P. Knowles, assignees of Philip W. Martin, by their deed dated October 27,1843, conveyed to Avery M. Pettis lots 88 and 89 on “ Plat of Philip W. Martin’s estate, by M. B. Lockwood, Providence, May 12,1843,” the boundaries given in the deed being as follows, namely: “ Beginning on lot eighty seven on said plat fronting on Charles Street, on which they measure one hundred and two feet to Greenland Street; thence on Greenland Street one hundred feet to lot No. forty seven; thence easterly seventy five feet three inches to lot No. eighty seven ; thence northerly one hundred feet to the first mentioned bound.”

*534 Greenland Street was declared useless and discontinued by tbe board of aldermen in 1879.

Tbe plaintiff, Mrs. Sarah A. Healey, is, and was at tbe discontinuance of Greenland Street, the owner of lot 89, haying derived her title thereto by mesne conveyances from said Avery W. Pet-tis. Lot 89 adjoined that portion of Greenland Street involved in this suit.

Prior to the bringing of the suit, May 15, 1883, the defendant Babbitt entered upon the lot in question and disseized the plaintiffs, and still holds them out of possession.

The plaintiffs claim that upon discontinuance of the highway, Mrs. Healey became entitled to the whole of the land in question, by reason of her ownership of the adjoining lot, namely, No. 89. The defendant Babbitt, on the other hand, claims title to the lot by conveyances from Martin and his assignees, made subsequent to the discontinuance of the highway, and contends that in no event can the plaintiffs recover more than the one half in width of the strip adjoining the land of Mrs. Healey.

In Hughes v. The Providence & Worcester Railroad Company, 2 R. I. 493, 512, this court laid down the rule governing the construction of deeds in cases of lands bounded on highways in the following language, namely : “ This court have repeatedly ruled, and it may now be considered the settled policy of the State, that where a deed bounds the grantee to, by, or on, a highway, . . . the presumption of law is, that the grantee takes the fee of the soil to the centre of the highway ... if the grantor, at the time, owned the fee to the centre, subject to the right of the public in the easement; unless there be established monuments) or other clear description in the deed, to rebut this presumption’ and show that the intention was to limit the grant to the line of the' highway.” . . . And see, also, Tingley Brothers v. City of Providence, 8 R. I. 493, 506. That such is the general rule of law, see the discussion and cases collected in the note to Dovaston v. Payne, 2 Smith’s Lead. Cas. *216; Tyler’s Law of Boundaries, &c. pp. 103-114; Cox v. The Louisville &c. R. R. Co. 48 Ind. 178-185, 188; Jarstadt v. Morgan, 48 Wisc. 245, 249; Tousley v. The Galena Mining & Smelting Co. 24 Kans. 328, 331-333.

*535

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bitting v. Gray
897 A.2d 25 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 R.I. 533, 1884 R.I. LEXIS 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/healey-v-babbitt-ri-1884.