Home/Supreme Court of Vermont/Ripchick v. Pearsons

Ripchick v. Pearsons

109 A.2d 347, 118 Vt. 311, 1954 Vt. LEXIS 124
CourtSupreme Court of Vermont
DecidedNovember 3, 1954
Docket1254
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 109 A.2d 347 (Ripchick v. Pearsons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ripchick v. Pearsons, 109 A.2d 347, 118 Vt. 311, 1954 Vt. LEXIS 124 (Vt. 1954).

Opinion

Sherburne, C. J.

This is an action in tort for trespass for wrongful cutting of timber and seeking treble damages under V. S. 47, §8403, resulting in a directed verdict for the defendant Pearsons and a general verdict against the other two defendants for actual damages and a special verdict answering in the negative a question asking if these two defendants had satisfied the jurors by a fair balance of the evidence that, in cutting such trees as they find were cut on the plaintiff’s land, the defendants acted through mistake or had good reason to believe the trees so cut were trees owned by the International Paper Company, and a judgment thereon for treble damages. The cause comes here upon the exceptions of these two defendants to the denials of- their motions for directed verdicts and to set the general and special verdicts aside. When the word "defendants” is hereinafter used it will apply to these two.

This litigation results from a dispute as to the location of the dividing line between two parts of a farm in Andover formerly known as the Gillette farm. The part claimed to be owned by the plaintiffs is described in Plaintiff’s Exhibit 11, a warranty deed from Henry J. Stewart and Christian and Minnie Orgard to Willard H. Jennings and George T: Buffum dated September 22, 1904, as follows:

"Commencing at a point on the South side of the highway leading from the house of Prof. Marsh to *313 Weston Island at a point on the South side of said road near a watering trough, thence running Southerly and Westerly on the open mowing land far enough North and West to include all the growing timber East and South of the cultivated land, thence Southerly on the East side of the South mowing land in a straight and direct line to the division line between the Gillette Farm (so called) and the North McDonald farm thence Easterly on the division line between the two said farms to a West line of the Prof. Marsh farm, thence Northerly on the West line of said Marsh farm to the first mentioned road, thence on the South side of said road to the place of beginning, containing about 75 acres be the same more or less. Meaning by this deed to convey all the land on the East side of said Gillette farm South of said road and East of the South mowing land running a line from the South end of said South mowing in a direct line across the open pasture land to the north line of the North McDonald Farm. It is especially agreed between the parties herein mentioned as parties to this instrument that the lines around this land shall be established and corners erected during this year. It being a part of the land conveyed to H. J. Stewart by deed from Addie F. G. Hayden dated June 5, 1903.”

The defendant Paper Company claims to own certain timber cutting rights on the other part of the so-called Gillette farm. This part is described in a warranty deed from Edward Dennette to Fred A. Boynton dated November 30, 1905, as follows:

"Being all and the same premises conveyed to me by Christian Orgard by his deed dated March 30, 1905, and being all of lots 3 and 4 in the 7th range of lots in Andover, excepting that portion thereof conveyed by said Christian Orgard to William A. Jennings and George T. Buffum by deed dated September 24, 1904, and amounting to 75 acres more or less. The premises hereby conveyed contain about 125 acres.”

*314 Our attention has not been further called to the deed from Orgard to Dennette.

Both sides have employed engineers to make surveys and plans to show the respective claims of the parties as to the area and location of the land described in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 11. Any difference between the two surveys as to the exact course of the line in the first call in this exhibit is here immaterial and they agree as to the starting point on the highway and as to the point reached located in a stone wall beside a new wood road that has been bulldozed through it. This point in the stone wall is marked "O” upon plaintiffs’ plan, upon which also have been plotted all material parts of defendants’ plan. Both surveys agree as to the location of the division line between the Gillette and McDonald farms, which starts in the town line between Weston and Andover at a point marked "D” and rims southeasterly to a point marked "G” on the Marsh line. Both surveys agree as to the Marsh line and the location of the highway. The only dispute is as to the location on the ground of the line from point "O” to the intersection with the division line "D” to ”G”.

Southerly and a little westerly of the point ”0” is a four sided walled-in area of fair size. The northeast corner is marked "P” on plaintiffs’ plan, and its southeast corner is marked "T”. Between "P” and "T” the stone-wall on the easterly side of this area is straight or nearly so. A straight line running southerly through "P” and "T” will hit the division line between the so-called Gillette and McDonald farms at a point about 30 feet east of the point "D”. The plaintiffs claimed that a line running from "O” through "P” and "T” to the point in such division line about 30 feet east of "D” was the rest of their west line, and the parties agree that the amount of the verdict brought in shows that the jury so found. With such a west line Exhibit 11 conveyed about 134 acres. A line drawn from point "T” to represent the shortest distance to such division line marked "D” - "G” would be perpendicular to that line and would intersect it at a point marked "W” 238 feet east of the point marked "D”. Plaintiffs’ engineer thought that a line running from "O” through "P” and "T” to "W” was the rest of plaintiffs’ west *315 line as described in plaintiffs’ Exhibit 11. The defendants claimed that such line was marked by a line drawn from "O” to a point possibly about 300 feet easterly of point "T”, marking the southeast corner of the walled-in area, and marked "Cl” on plaintiffs’ plan, and from there at an angle of 142° 2' to that line drawn southeasterly to intersect the division line "D” - "G” at a point "F” on plaintiffs’ plan and 1980 feet easterly from point "D”. With such a west line Exhibit 11 conveys 92.28 acres. All the cutting of timber for which recovery is sought was in the area between a line drawn from "T” to a point in the line "D” — "G” about 30 feet east of "D” and the line "Cl” — "F”. If the line "O” — "Cl” were prolonged southerly in a straight line it would hit line "D”— "G” at a point marked "E” on plaintiffs’ plan 720 feet easterly of "D” and 1260 feet westerly of "F”. Within the area of the triangle "Cl” — "E”—"F” 98,000 feet of timber was cut. A line drawn from "Cl” to represent the shortest distance to the division line "D” — "G” would be perpendicular to that line and would intersect it at a point marked "VI” 570 feet easterly of "D” and 150 feet westerly of "E”. Within the area of the triangle "Cl” — "VI”—"E” 25,000 feet of timber was cut.

*0

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

Related

Ranney Dairy Farm, LLC Major Subdivision Appeal - Merits Decision
Vermont Superior Court, 2025
Pion v. Bean
2003 VT 79 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2003)
Krupp v. State Highway Board
209 A.2d 320 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1965)
Spooner v. Menard
196 A.2d 510 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1963)
Amey v. Hall
181 A.2d 69 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
109 A.2d 347, 118 Vt. 311, 1954 Vt. LEXIS 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ripchick-v-pearsons-vt-1954.