Marshall v. Niles

8 Conn. 369
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedJune 15, 1831
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 8 Conn. 369 (Marshall v. Niles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Marshall v. Niles, 8 Conn. 369 (Colo. 1831).

Opinion

Peters, J.

This case presents two questions: 1. Was the land demanded conveyed to Marshall and Latham, by the deed of the Sopers? 2. Or was it included in the reservation to William Soper?

The grant was of a grist-mill and the bank whereon it stood, with the appurtenances thereof, on the South side of the river. West of and adjoining to the bridge, which crosseth the river. The grant is of land and buildings. The reservation is of a building only. By a grant of land, the superstructure passes. By a grant of the superstructure, that only passes. 2 Bla. Comm. 18. The defendants admit, that by the term bank, land passes; yet they claim, that by this deed, that only passed, which was covered by the buildings. The grant of the appurtenances conveyed to the grantees a right of way to the premises, and every thing else necessary to the enjoyment of the grant. The land conveyed is under the buildings and adjoining to the bridge; and the building reserved is between the mill and the bridge, and upon the land in question. The intention of the parties is obvious; and the terms of the grant are too plain to admit of doubt. Were they otherwise, they are to be taken most strongly against the grantors. As the defendants have no estate in the land, and their interest in the building is limited to its existence, they have no right to incumber the land beyond that period; and having voluntarily destroyed it, their interest is terminated; and by continuing in possession under a claim of right, they have become disseisors.

The plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to judgment according to the agreement of the parties.

The other Judges were of the same opinion.

Judgment for plaintiffs.

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Crabbe v. Middletown Hydraulic Co.
151 N.E. 653 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1926)
Sweeney v. Landers, Frary & Clark
69 A. 566 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1908)
Merwin v. Backer
68 A. 373 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1907)
Boone v. Robert
5 L.R.A. 276 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1889)
Coddington v. Hopkins
1 Cal. Unrep. 199 (California Supreme Court, 1865)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Conn. 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marshall-v-niles-conn-1831.