¶1The question whether the railroad, mentioned as a boundary in the deed sued on, was the strip of land owned by the railroad corporation, according to the original location and the apparent occupation, or according to the present legal title, was a latent ambiguity, requiring extrinsic evidence to apply it. Putnam v. Bond, 100 Mass. 58. The judgment of the Superior Court, involving a decision of that question of fact, is therefore conclusive. Backus v. Chapman, 111 Mass. 386. Sweetland v. Stetson, 115 Mass. 49. Exceptions overruled.
116 Mass. 132
Hoar v. Goulding
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided October 8, 1874
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1874-10-08
Contract for breach of warranty. At the trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Brigham, C. J., the following facts were found: The defendants, by a warranty deed, dated June 5,1869, conveyed to the plaintiff a lot of land in Worcester, bounded and described as follows : “ Beginning one hundred feet northwest from Bloomingdale Road, thence running sixty-nine feet more or less on Ascension Street to the Boston and Albany Railroad, thence turning and running…
Relies on Backus v. Chapman · Putnam v. Bond · Sweetland v. Stetson
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1874-10-08
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 1910
7 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 →