Case ID: mass_63/html/0492-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Metcalf, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Cold Spring Iron Works vs. The Inhabitants of Tolland.
    Under a statute by which a stream not navigable is made the boundary of an incorporated territory, the centre of the stream, and not the edge or margin, is the true boundary line; and this is so although the monuments are described as standing on the margin or bank of the stream.
    This was an action on the case, to recover damages to the plaintiffs’ property, by an alleged defect of a bridge across the Farmington River, and was submitted to the court of common pleas, and,.by appeal, to this court, upon the following agreed statement of facts : —
    The accident occurred on the east half of the bridge. The defendants deny that any portion of the bridge is situated within the limits of the town of Tolland, and allege that the east bank of the river forms the west boundary of the town, and the parties propose to submit the question of boundary to the court. If no part of the bridge is within the town of Tolland, the plaintiffs are to be nonsuit; if otherwise, the case is to stand for trial in court or before referees, to be agreed on by the parties or appointed by the court.
    Tolland was incorporated in 1810, and formerly composed the west parish of Granville, which parish was incorporated in 1785. Granville was incorporated in 1754. The bounds mentioned in the act commence at the southeast corner of Granville, and run thence up the east side of that town, and along the north side, to the southwest corner of Blandford. The description then proceeds as follows : “ Thence the same course 660 perches to a hemlock tree marked, with stones about it, on the west branch of Farmington River, and is the northwest corner of said tract; from thence bounding on said west branch of Farmington River, as the same runs, to a great hemlock tree at the colony line, being the southwest corner of said tract; from thence on said colony line east nine degrees, 3320 perches to the first station.”
    The “ hemlock tree ” at the northwest, and the “ great hemlock tree ” at the southwest corner of Granville, stand on the east side of the river.
    Opposite the part of Tolland where the bridge is built, is that part of Sandisfield formerly incorporated as Southfield, and the annexation of the two towns of Sandisfield and Southfield was in 1820.
    The road on which the bridge is built was the 10th Massachusetts turnpike.
    The town of Tolland never built or repaired any portion of the bridge.
    All acts and resolutions and proceedings of the legislature of Massachusetts, relating to the boundary of the counties of Berkshire or Hampden, or to those of the border towns of those counties, and all maps and allotments and surveys of land which properly affect the boundaries of those towns may be referred to.
    These facts are agreed to only so far as they affect the» boundaries of the above-named towns, and are not to affect the subsequent trial of the case.
    The presiding judge of the court of common pleas having ruled that, upon these facts, the bridge was not situated within the town of Tolland, and that the defendants were not liable, the plaintiffs appealed to this court.
    
      M. Wilcox, for the plaintiffs.
    The west line of Tolland is the centre or thread of the river. King v. King, 7 Mass. 496; Lunt v. Holland, 14 Mass. 149 ; Inhabitants of Ipswich, petitioners, 13 Pick. 431; Mayo v. Quimby, 3 Dane’s Abr. 4; Harramond v. M’ Glaughon, 1 Taylor, (N. C.) 136, cited in Angelí on "Watercourses, (4th ed.) § 37; Lowell v. Robinson, 4 Shepley, 357; The State v. Gilma/nton, 9 N. H. 461; Noble v. Omningham,, 1 McMullan, Eq. R. 289; Warner v. Southworth, 6 Conn. 471; Luce v. Carley, 24 Wend. 451; Child v. Starr, 4 Hill, 369.
    
      W G. Bates, for the defendants.
    1. The liability of the defendants depends upon the construction of the act of 1754, incorporating Granville. 1 Special Laws, 97; 4 Ibid. 299.
    2. Though there is an analogy in the construction of an act or a resolve and a deed or a contract, yet that analogy is not strict, and different rules may well be applied. In the first case, reference is had mainly to questions of jurisdiction, and it may be an object that the lines of a municipality should be on the shore of a stream instead of in the thread, for the purpose of avoiding the difficulties arising in the erection of bridges by adjacent towns, or in apportioning the damages sustained by reason of defects in such bridges. In the latter case, regard is had to agricultural and manufacturing purposes, and the interests of conterminous proprietors.
    3. In the construction of a grant, doubtful words are to be taken most strongly against the grantor, but in case of an act no such implication is raised.
    4. In the construction both of a deed and an act, the evident intention is to govern, and the reasons and circumstances existing at the time, and the conduct of the parties at and subsequent thereto, will explain any otherwise ambiguous expression. Hatch v. Dwight, 17 Mass. 289, 295, 299Rix v. Johnson, 5 N. H. 520; Angelí on Watercourses, (4th ed.) §§ 10-40.
    5. The language of the act limits the west line of Tol-land to the east bank of the river; both monuments stand there, and both are declared to be corners. The expression, “ thence bounding on said west branch, as the same runs, to a great hemlock tree at the colony line, being the southwest corner of said tract,” is equivalent to expressions used in conveyancing, “ thence bounding on land of A. B., to a stake,” &c., meaning to follow the outer line of his land, or, in this case, the shore of the stream, or the edge of the ■water.
    6. The line has been understood so to run, Tolland never having built or repaired the bridge.
    7. The language of the grant, as compared with other acts, tavors the defendants. 1 Special Laws, 97; 2 Ibid. 393; Ibid. 166 ; 5 Ibid. 280.
   Metcalf, J.

The single question in this case is, whether the eastern bank or the centre of the west branch of Farming-ton River is the western boundary of the town of Tolland. And this depends on the construction and effect of the statute of 1754, incorporating the town of Granville. By that statute, the north line of the incorporated tract ran “ to a hemlock tree marked, with stones about it, on the west branch of Far-mington River,” which was declared to be “ the northwest corner of said tract.” From this corner, the west line of said tract ran southerly, “ bounding on said west branch of Farmington River, as the same runs, to a great hemlock tree at the colony line, being the southwest corner of said tract.” By St. 1784, c. 74, the town of Granville was divided into three parishes; and the western line of the west parish was the western line of the town. By St. 1810, c. 14, the west parish, as known by its then existing bounds, was incorporated as a town, by the name of Tolland. The western boundary line of Gran-ville, as established by St. 1754, is therefore the present western boundary line of Tolland. And, in our opinion, that line is the centre or thread of the river.

A grant of land, bounded on a stream not navigable, car lies the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the centre of the stream, unless the terms of the grant clearly denote the intention to stop at the edge or margin. Angell on Watercourses, (4th ed.) §§ 11, 23; 3 Kent Com. (7th ed.) 516. And this is so, although the monuments are described as standing on the margin or bank of the stream. By Walworth, Chancellor, 4 Hill, 375; Coovert v. O’Conner, 8 Watts, 470; Lowell v. Robinson, 4 Shepley, 357; Lunt v. Holland, 14 Mass. 149; Knight v. Wilder, 2 Cush. 199. The case of Luce v. Carley, 24 Wend. 451, cannot be distinguished from this. In that case, the granted premises were described by a line running to a hemlock stake, “ standing on the east bank of the river; from thence down the river, as it winds and turns,'24 chains and 94 links, to a hard maple tree,” &c. It was held that the grantee took to the centre of the river. “ It is never thought,” said the court, “ that monuments, mentioned in such a deed as occupying the bank of the river, are meant by the parties to stand on the precise water line, at its high or low mark. They are used rather to fix the termini of the line which is described as following the sinuosities of the stream, leaving the law to say whether the one half of the river shall be included. Where the grant is so framed as to touch the waters of the river, and the parties do not expressly except the river, one half the bed of the river is included by construction of law. If the parties mean to exclude it, they should do so by express exception.” So in Noble v. Cunningham, 1 McMullan Eq. Rep. 289, it was held that no intention to exclude the bed of an unnavigable watercourse can be inferred from the fact that the corners of the granted land, as described in the grant, are marked trees growing on the bank. The court said, “ the corners were marked on the bank, of necessity. No corners could be put in the river. The river is- laid down as an open line from corner to corner, which in fact makes it a boundary, and carnes the line to the thread of the stream, or centre of the boundary.”

The same construction that is given to grants is given to statutes which prescribe the boundaries of incorporated territories. Inhabitants of Ipswich, petitioners, 13 Pick. 431.

According to the agreement of the parties, the case is to stand for trial.