Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

8 N.H. 402

Bowman v. Farmer

Superior Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 15, 1836

Superior Court of New Hampshire · decided 1836-12-15

This was a writ of entry, brought to recover a tract of land in Goffstown, and was tried upon the general issue at September term, 1836. It appeared that the parties were the owners of two adjoining lots ; each of which was bounded east by Merrimack river ; and the lot of the demandant lay southerly of the lot owned by the tenant.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1836-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1892

5 state decisions

201836184018501860187018801890decided

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 →

Richardson, C. J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2It is a well settled general rule, that in a description of land in a deed of conveyance, what is most material and certain shall control that which is less material and uncertain. Thus a river, a known stream, a spring, or a marked tree, when declared to be a boundary in a deed, will control both course and distance. 9 Cranch 178; 7 Cowen 723, Jackson vs. Wedger; 1 do. 605, Jackson vs. Camp; 7 Wheaton 10, Newton vs. Prior; 6 do. 582, Preston vs. Bowman.

¶3And if in the deed of the tenant in this case a reference had been made to Black brook, as a boundary between the two tracts, it is very clear that the brook must have prevailed against the point of compass stated in the deed.

¶4But the terms, u running from thence up said brook,” do *404not necessarily imply that the line is to run on or by the brook. They may just as well mean that it is to run in a course corresponding with the general course or direction of the brook between the common land and the river, which is very nearly east and west. And if the intention had been to make the brook the boundary, it would naturally have been stated that the line was to run on or by the brook.

¶5We are, therefore, of opinion that the brook is not designated in the deed as a boundary with sufficient certainty to control the point of compass, which is expressly stated to be due west.

¶6The verdict is, therefore, set aside, and

¶7A new trial granted.

/8/nh/402 · .json · Public domain