Case Name: Warren P. Knox vs. Rodolphus C. Clark
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1877-09-26
Citations: 123 Mass. 216
Docket Number: 
Parties: Warren P. Knox vs. Rodolphus C. Clark.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 123
Pages: 216–218

Head Matter:
Warren P. Knox vs. Rodolphus C. Clark.
Hampden.
September 25. — 26, 1877.
Endicott & Lord, JJ., absent.
On the issue of the location of a disputed boundary line, an experienced surveyor may testify that, in his opinion, a mark upon a certain tree was such as a surveyor would make, and that a certain pile of stones was, in his judgment, an ancient monument.
Tort for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close. Trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:
In order to fix the disputed boundary line, it was necessary to establish a certain corner, termed the northwest corner, the monument fixing which, if any had ever existed, the plaintiff contended had been obliterated.
It was in evidence that the land in question was upon one of the mountains of the town of Chester, in the vicinity of certain mineral lands; that its surface was very uneven and covered with trees, large boulders and small stones, thickets and briars; and that it was very difficult, if not impossible, to use surveyors’ instruments with accuracy upon it.
The plaintiff introduced as a witness William M. Lewis, a surveyor, who exhibited a map of the land made by him from measurements by a chain, and testified in substance that, in order to fix the point of the obliterated corner monument, he proceeded to measure from other points where he found certain piles of stones, which he was permitted to call monuments, and then following the courses of a certain deed by measurements with the chain in the indicated direction, he fixed the point of the disputed monument, and so the line.
The plaintiff asked him this question, “ State whether or not, in your opinion, the stones which you have described were placed there as a monument ? ” The witness answered, “ I should think it was such a pile of stones as indicated a monument.” The witness also testified as follows concerning a certain beech tree which the plaintiff contended was a monument: “ I found a beech tree that was clearly marked as a monument, such a mark as a surveyor would make.”
The plaintiff, in reference to these piles of stones, asked the witness the following question: “Could you form an opinion whether they were ancient monuments, or of recent erection ? ” The witness replied: “ Yes, I should think that the pile of stones had been there quite a length of time.” It was admitted that the surveyor had had long experience in surveying lands, and was a competent expert. The defendant objected to the above questions and answers ; but the judge admitted them.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defend« ant alleged exceptions.
JE. JET. jLathrop, for the defendant.
Gf. M. Stearns M. P. Knowlton, for the plaintiff.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The witness, having knowledge of the matters inquired of, was rightly permitted to testify.
Exceptions t terruled.