Case Name: George E. M. T. Webber vs. Francis B. Overlock et al.; Francis B. Overlock et al. vs. George E. M. T. Webber; Same vs. Same
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1876-04-27
Citations: 66 Me. 177
Docket Number: 
Parties: George E. M. T. Webber vs. Francis B. Overlock et al. Francis B. Overlock et al. vs. George E. M. T. Webber. Same vs. Same.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 66
Pages: 177–179

Head Matter:
George E. M. T. Webber vs. Francis B. Overlock et al. Francis B. Overlock et al. vs. George E. M. T. Webber. Same vs. Same.
Waldo,
1875.
April 27, 1876.
Deed.
A deed bounding the grantee by a highway conveys the fee to the center of the highway, when the title of the grantor extends so far.
Thus: where plaintiff’s land was north of and adjoining the defendants’; and the defendant’s deed, which was the earlier, described his land as being' the south part of the west half of lot number 23, and bounded on the north by a line parallel with the north line of said half lot, and so far south of the north line as to leave forty acres and no more north of the first mentioned line; on the east by a line dividing lot number 28 in the centre from north to south; on the south by lot number 20; and on the west by the county road; held, that the divisional line between the lands of the parties is one drawn from east to west over the west half of lot number 23 to the centre of the highway parallel with, and so far south of, the north line of the lot as to leave forty acres in the west half of the lot north of it.
ON REPORT.
Trespass and writ oe entry ; three cases tried together between the same parties upon the same evidence, in which the question was : where upon the face of the earth was the east and west divisional line between their farms. Webber’s land lay north and Overlook’s south of that line; and each charged the other in trespass, with cutting and carrying away grass over their line, in the season of 1874. Overlook also brought a writ of entry. Webber claimed a prescriptive line indicated by a fence ; wherein the evidence was conflicting. Overlook claimed a line north of that, to be determined by the deeds only. Webber’s title by deed was to a southern line which taken with the other boundaries would leave forty acres of lot No. 23 in Brooks west of a north and south divisional line of the lot.
The whole of lot No. 23, was originally owned by David Sears et als, who before conveying any part of it divided it into equal parts by a line running through it from north to south. The first conveyance of any part of the west half was to Stephen Stantial by deed of October 19,1839, described as follows: being the south
part of the west half of lot No. 23, and bounded as follows : on the north by a line parallel with the north line of said half lot and so far south of said north line as to leave forty acres and no more, north of the first mentioned line on said lot; on the east, by a line dividing said lot No. 23, in the center from north to south ; on the south by lot No. 26, and on the west by the county road leading from Brooks to Thorndike.
Other deeds wrere introduced by both parties in which were the descriptive phrases: “to the county road” and “by the county road.”
TF. II. Fogler, for Webber.
W. P. Ilarriman and FT. II. Hubbard, for Overlook et al.

Opinion:
The north and east lines of the forty acre parcel being given; in order to find the southern line, it became necessary first to determine whether the forty acre parcel included the whole or half the road or neither, because the less of the road that was included, the father south would be the southern boundary. Other facts appear by the surveyor's plan and in the opinion.