Pernam v. Wead

6 Mass. 131
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1809
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 6 Mass. 131 (Pernam v. Wead) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pernam v. Wead, 6 Mass. 131 (Mass. 1809).

Opinion

* Parsons, C. J.

Upon considering the facts in this [* 133] case, we have no doubt as to the motion. It must prevail, and a new trial be granted. When the facts were agreed by the parties, or proved at the trial, the result was a mere conclusion of law. And on these points the law has been long settled.

When the boundaries of land are fixed, known, and unquestion able monuments, although neither courses, nor distances, nor the computed contents, correspond, the monuments must govern. With respect to courses, from errors in surveying instruments, variation of the needle, and other causes, different surveyors often disagree. The same observations apply to distances, arising from the inaccuracy of measures, or of the party measuring ; and computations are often erroneous. But fixed monuments remain: about them there is no dispute or uncertainty; and what may be uncertain must be governed by monuments, about which there is no dispute.

In the present case, Sanborn and Collins’s land on one side, and Fletcher’s on the other, are fixed monuments. The land is bounded on them, and must extend in width from one to the other. If the contents had proved less than thirteen rods, yet the tenant could claim only to those monuments; and where the contents are found to be greater, he still shall hold to the same monuments. The jury therefore mistook the law; and the cause must be sent to another jury to correct the mistake.

New trial ordered.

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

Related

Temple v. Benson
100 N.E. 63 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)
Percival v. Chase
65 N.E. 800 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
Webster v. White
66 N.W. 1145 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1896)
Abbey v. McPherson
41 P. 978 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1895)
Hanson v. Township of Red Rock
57 N.W. 11 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1893)
Yocum v. Haskins
46 N.W. 1065 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1890)
Docter v. Hellberg
27 N.W. 176 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1886)
Sonsmith v. The J. P. Donaldson
21 F. 671 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan, 1884)
Robinson v. . Kime
70 N.Y. 147 (New York Court of Appeals, 1877)
Coburn v. Coxeter
51 N.H. 158 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1871)
Bailey v. White
41 N.H. 337 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1860)
Sayers v. City of Lyons
10 Iowa 249 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1859)
Manson v. Koppikus
11 Cal. 89 (California Supreme Court, 1858)
The John Perkins
13 F. Cas. 702 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1857)
Curtis v. Francis
63 Mass. 427 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1852)
Benedict v. Gaylord
11 Conn. 332 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1836)
Higley v. Bidwell
9 Conn. 455 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1833)
Wendell v. Jackson ex dem. People
8 Wend. 183 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 1831)
Belden v. Seymour
8 Conn. 19 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1830)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Mass. 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pernam-v-wead-mass-1809.