The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1869-02-19
supreme Judicial Cours.

JANUARY TERMINATION j., PREeIDING.
THURsDAY.-Eben Steele v. John B. Leathe g. al
Action to settle boundary line between the parties
land located in Portland, bounded on three sides by
Commercial street and Sumner street, which makes
elbow to join it; plaintiffs land on the east de-
fendant's on the west, in the elbow; division line
from Sumner to Commercial street, about 1856 feet
longs slip in dispute 10 feet wide on Sumnet street
and Is on Commercial street. There is no dispute of
the title OF either party to the land their respec
tive sides of the line. Plaintiffs land was formerly
owned by Thomas Bracket, who inherited it from
his father. No record remains of his western line
but after his death prior to the year 1928 his land was
divided under the direction of the Judge Of Probate
when the western line was run by Surveyor Russell,
and thereafter called the Russell line This line ex-
tends from given point on Bridge street. now Dam
forth street, in southerly direction to low water
mark. To find this line is one Of the purposes Of
this suit. Under the Probate division this land be-
came the property of John and Sarah Fahyan, who
transferred it to their Joshua and Horace. The
mortgaged to the present plaintiff on the 9th
of October, 1884. who afterwards foreclosed and
came into ownership. fence for agricultural pur-
poses was erected year two after the running Of
the Russell line till about the year 1866 when the land
in that section promised to be valuable the running
OF neghboring lines by surveyors threw doubt upon
the correctness of the fence line as the true Russell
line, and new survey was held by parties interest
ed. In this survey the engineer started from an
agreed point on Danforth street, known as Bridge
street, the Russell plan but no means of ascer-
tanning the included angle was given on the Russell
plan he obliged to resort to plan of the adjon-
ing land, made some two years LATER called the Saw
yer plan, where the course of Danforth street and
OF the division line were given SO that the Russell
plan was of no service to the surveyor In running
the division line Running by the Sawyer plan from
Danforth street through Salem street to Sumner
street and West Commercial street, the new line CO.
incding with the fence line at point on Danforth
street gradually DIVORCES from 1t till 1t reaches the
water, and between Sumner and Commercial streets
the line and the fence line include the disputed
strip. part Of the plaintiffs land lies north of
Sumner street, where the plaintiff holds to the fence
line by the decision of umpire; but on the prem
ises in question defendants after the new run
ming removed the fence and placed buildings upon
the disputed strip, whereupon the plaintiff COM
menced this suit to settle the ttle he claims the
strip first by twenty years possession and secondly,
the ground that the fence line the true Rus
sci line as first run. sa1rIa l tsaias
The Defendants on the other hand, deny that the
fence was built the line. They say it was cheap
turing and poor at that and was observed to
place it where it belonged; and they apply certain
tests OF measurement taken at two places on the new
line where the breadth OF the land of other parties
was given on the Russell plan. This cross measure
ment it is commended veres the accuracy of the new
running while by the fence line other parties named
in the Russell plan would just get their measurements
the.plantiff would get some IL 10 feet in breadth
more than his measurement.
The plaintiff in reply insists upon the positions
first TAKEN and Introduces witnesses who testify that
the fence actually built in the line Of the ahubs
placed in the ground by Surveyor Russell.
The Judge instructed the jury that as the wester.
ly line of the Thomas Bracket estate was an exter
ior line the commissioners appointed by the Judge
of Probate to make PARTON had authority to
change it, that the Russell line. If it conceded with
it, added nothing to its validity; II it varied from It,
it had no validity Of its own; it was their duty to
take it they found it, that the fct that they did
an exterior line was circumstance in the case
which the jury might take int account, but by no
means conclusive that while 1t is rule Of law that
monuments control both courses and distances, yet
that the exterior monuments set up under the Rus
sci survey were not of that characters as they had no
right to determine the line. The Judge also sub
stantially instructed the jury that the plaintiff had
acquired title by possession in this case that the
real question for the jury to find was, whether the
western line OF the plaintiffs lot the fence line
as he claimed the line Of the new running as the
defendants claim.
The jury returned verdict for the plaintiff tor
the premises, and for damages $2b. They also found
that Steele's westerly line claimed by him was the
westerly line of the Thomas Bracket estate divided
among his heirs in 1928.
Davis & Drummond. Strout-Webb.
John W. Rand v. Bradbury Rand & ux Plea OF
land. Defendants claim under a tax title Referred
to Court, Final, as to law and fact.
Symonds-S c. Strout. Carleton-Emery. 4
Govt adjourned te next Tuesday at 10 A. M