Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortplaintiffdefendantdamages
tortplaintiffdefendantdamages

Related Cases

Butler v. Frontier Tel. Co., 109 A.D. 217, 95 N.Y.S. 684
View Case »
Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit, 410 Mich. 616, 304 N.W.2d 455, 19 ERC 1972, 11 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,778
View Case »
Hanson v. Zoller, 187 N.W.2d 47
View Case »
Da Silva v. Musso, 76 N.Y.2d 436, 559 N.E.2d 1268, 560 N.Y.S.2d 109
View Case »
Hagan v. Delaware Anglers’ & Gunners’ Club, 655 A.2d 292
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Codman v. Evans, 1 Allen 443, 83 Mass. 443, 1861 WL 4519

Facts

In 1811, John Amory conveyed a lot of land to John T. Apthorp, which was bounded by a passage way. The deed specified that the lot was described in relation to the passage way and included a provision for shared use of the passage way between the grantee and the grantor. The defendant later constructed a new house with bay-windows that projected over the passage way, prompting the plaintiffs to file a tort action for the overhang.

In 1811, John Amory conveyed a lot of land to John T. Apthorp, which was bounded by a passage way.

Issue

Whether the grant of land to Apthorp included the center line of the passage way or only extended to its side line.

Whether the grant of land to Apthorp included the center line of the passage way or only extended to its side line.

Rule

The question of whether land granted bounding upon a way extends to the side line or the center line of the way depends on the intent of the parties as expressed in the deed and is determined by the descriptive parts of the deed and the localities to which it applies.

The question of whether land granted bounding upon a way extends to the side line or the center line of the way depends on the intent of the parties as expressed in the deed and is determined by the descriptive parts of the deed and the localities to which it applies.

Analysis

The court analyzed the deed from Amory to Apthorp, noting that the language used explicitly excluded the passage way from the lot granted. The description of the lot and the provisions regarding the use of the passage way indicated that the grant was limited to the side line, thereby establishing that the defendant's construction of bay-windows over the passage way constituted a tort against the plaintiffs.

The court analyzed the deed from Amory to Apthorp, noting that the language used explicitly excluded the passage way from the lot granted.

Conclusion

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding them one dollar in damages for the tortious overhang of the bay-windows.

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding them one dollar in damages for the tortious overhang of the bay-windows.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed in the case because the court found that the deed did not grant the defendant rights to the center line of the passage way, thus affirming their property rights.

The plaintiffs prevailed in the case because the court found that the deed did not grant the defendant rights to the center line of the passage way, thus affirming their property rights.

You must be