Town of Underhill v. Town of Jericho

Supreme Court of Vermont

Town of Underhill v. Town of Jericho

140 A. 156, 101 Vt. 41, 1928 Vt. LEXIS 119

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedJanuary 18, 1928

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 A. 156 (Town of Underhill v. Town of Jericho) 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

Town of Underhill v. Town of Jericho, 140 A. 156, 101 Vt. 41, 1928 Vt. LEXIS 119 (Vt. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The parties are adjoining towns. They have been unable to agree as to the location of the division line between them; and the town of Underhill has'brought its petition to this Court to have commissioners appointed in accordance with the provisions of G. L. See. 4067 to locate the line.

Otherwise than by doubting the jurisdiction of the Court, the defendant does not oppose the granting of the prayer of the petition. This doubt is based' on the admitted fact that, in attempting to proceed under G. L. Sec. 4066, the town of Under-hill voted to cause the division line to be “resurveyed” instead of to. be “located.” “Locate” is the word used in the statute.

The question presented is simply whether the vote taken is equivalent to a vote to have the line located. We think it is. The first definition of the word “locate” given'in Bouvier’s *42 Law Dictionary, Rawle’s Third Revision, is “to ascertain the place in which something belongs, as to locate the calls in a deed or survey.” The word “resurvey” as used in the vote taken obviously means to locate the calls in whatever deeds, charters, grants, or surveys are material and relevant to the matter in dispute. Consequently, we have jurisdiction.

The parties have submitted an agreed statement of facts containing the names of three men whom they recommend for appointment as commissioners provided the court can act. These men will be appointed.

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

Per Curiam.

The parties are adjoining towns. They have been unable to agree as to the location of the division line between them; and the town of Underhill has'brought its petition to this Court to have commissioners appointed in accordance with the provisions of G. L. See. 4067 to locate the line.

Otherwise than by doubting the jurisdiction of the Court, the defendant does not oppose the granting of the prayer of the petition. This doubt is based' on the admitted fact that, in attempting to proceed under G. L. Sec. 4066, the town of Under-hill voted to cause the division line to be “resurveyed” instead of to. be “located.” “Locate” is the word used in the statute.

The question presented is simply whether the vote taken is equivalent to a vote to have the line located. We think it is. The first definition of the word “locate” given'in Bouvier’s *42 Law Dictionary, Rawle’s Third Revision, is “to ascertain the place in which something belongs, as to locate the calls in a deed or survey.” The word “resurvey” as used in the vote taken obviously means to locate the calls in whatever deeds, charters, grants, or surveys are material and relevant to the matter in dispute. Consequently, we have jurisdiction.

The parties have submitted an agreed statement of facts containing the names of three men whom they recommend for appointment as commissioners provided the court can act. These men will be appointed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A. 156, 101 Vt. 41, 1928 Vt. LEXIS 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-underhill-v-town-of-jericho-vt-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack