Hoar v. Goulding
116 Mass. 132, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 42
Opinion
The question whether the railroad, mentioned as a boundary in the deed sued on, was the strip of land owned by the railroad corporation, according to the original location and the apparent occupation, or according to the present legal title, was a latent ambiguity, requiring extrinsic evidence to apply it. Putnam v. Bond, 100 Mass. 58. The judgment of the Superior Court, involving a decision of that question of fact, is therefore conclusive. Backus v. Chapman, 111 Mass. 386. Sweetland v. Stetson, 115 Mass. 49. Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hoar v. Goulding, 116 Mass. 132, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 42 (Mass. 1874).
116 Mass. 132 (Hoar v. Goulding) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Weeks v. Brooks
92 N.E. 45 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
Barrett v. Murphy
2 N.E. 833 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1885)
Dodd v. Witt
29 N.E. 475 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1885)
Sartwell v. Humphrey
136 Mass. 396 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1884)
Ames v. McCamber
124 Mass. 85 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1878)
Wilcox v. Lucas
121 Mass. 21 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1876)
Davis v. Stone
120 Mass. 228 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1876)