¶1This is an action between the owners of adjacent lots of land. Each has as much land as her deed calls for. The controversy is as to a strip one foot wide on which the fence between the two lots stands. To whom this belongs depends upon the application of the description in the deeds to the land. It is true that the boundary upon the land of a third person makes that land a monument, but where the monument is is a question of fact. The judge of the Superior Court has found as facts that the defendant proved no title to the strip in question, and that the plaintiff was in possession thereof. His finding was based partly on the testimony of witnesses, and depends upon their credibility. The bill of exceptions presents pure questions oi *50fact, on which the decision of the court below is final. No title in either party being proved, the plaintiff’s possession is sufficient to maintain this action. Exceptions overruled.
115 Mass. 49
Sweetland v. Stetson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided March 18, 1874
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1874-03-18
Tort for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close, and pulling up and removing a fence. The defendant claimed title in the land on which the fence stood, and at the trial in the Superior Court before Putnam, J., trial by jury being waived, put in evidence certain deeds and oral testimony.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1874-03-18
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 1970
1 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →