Kent v. Taylor
This text of 13 A. 419 (Kent v. Taylor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Land describecj in a deed as bounded on the bank of a river not navigable, or by lines x-unning to a stake or tree standing on the bank, and thence up, down, on, or by the river to another monument on the bank, extends to the thread of the stream. The doctrine is founded on the presumption that such was the intention and understaxxding of the parties. The mere fact that the distances and the quantity of land conveyed are greater under this construction than those named in the deed is xxot sufficient to overcome the presumption. Rix v. Johnson, 5 N. H. 520 ; State v. Canterbury, 28 N. H. 195, 216; Woodman v. Spencer, 54 N. H. 507, 511, 512; Sleeper v. Laconia, 60 N. H. 201; Taylor v. Blake, ante, 392; Newhall v. Ireson, 8 Cush. 595, 598; Gould v. Eastern Railroad Co., 142 Mass. 85, 89; Berridge v. Ward, 10 C. B. N. S. 400; County of St. Clair v. Lovingston, 23 Wall. 46, 64.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
13 A. 419, 64 N.H. 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kent-v-taylor-nh-1887.