Case Name: William Patterson versus Enoch Trask
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1849
Citations: 30 Me. 28
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Patterson versus Enoch Trask.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 30
Pages: 28–29

Head Matter:
William Patterson versus Enoch Trask.
A farm was a little wider at that end which was bounded on the river, than at the other end. The north half was conveyed to the plaintiff, separated from the other part by a line beginning at the river, and running back the length of the farm, “holding its width equally alike,” the whole length of the farm : —
Held, the plaintiff was entitled to a strip of equal width throughout, and that its width at the river must be so much less than one-half the width at that end as to give to the parties each an equal number of acres.
■ Trespass quake clausum. The question was one of boundary, and related to the location of a line across the David Trask farm, so called.
That farm was bounded on one end by the river. And it was a little wider at the river than at the back end. A conveyance to the plaintiff gave him the north half of the farm, separated from the other half, by a line beginning at the river and running to the back end of the lot, “ holding its width equally alike from said river ” to said back end of the lot, “ said one-half to be taken on the northern part of said farm.”
The plaintiff contended that a sound construction of the deed, gave him a strip beginning at the river and there being half the width of that end of the farm, and extending of that exact width to the back end, although it would include a little more than half the number of acres.
F. Allen and Foote, for plaintiff.
This is a deed in which the particular controls the general description. The grantor owned the whole farm. He fixed the width of plaintiff’s part at the river, but not in the rear. The width at the river being thus fixed, his part extended of that width throughout, between parallel lines, regardless whether the other part grew narrower or wider.
Ingalls, for defendant.

Opinion:
The Court decided that the plaintiff's part must be of equal width throughout; and that the end of his part at the river, must be so much less than one-half the width of the farm at that end as to give an equal number of acres to each party. Upon this construction, no acts of trespass appear to have been committed on the plaintiff's half.
Judgment for defendant.