Rhode Island v. Massachusetts

v. Massachusetts. Rhode Island is au- or no means stands, it, when, process as the law now think, We be executed. could which our judgment thorized by Territo- the late rendered decree therefore, by or that judgment unless or of error writ be reviewed here by appeal, can rial Court made Congress. be shall by on that further subject some provision refused. be motion in this must case the. Consequently, Complainant, Island, v. The State of Rhode State The Massachusetts, Defendant. 1629, lying with- confirmed in included the grant of The territory River, or of English space part of three miles on the south the every thereof.” on line by Connecticut called be bounded the grant north In plantations. Massachusetts ’ on "S3, by Island called be bounded the north grant In Rhode southerly of Massachusetts. line fiver, be body of the' three miles shall measurement Whether it, is clear. fill into' not The head-waters the streams which from the or charter language. way doing construed either without violence its bemay it not be corn although may of it is not early exposition disregarded, elusive. Saffrey fixed a of the southern- In Woodward station miles south one the tributaries of Charles River. part of most line, express necessary order the crown was not to run this as it not then An boundary. of disputed a case by were -nd appointed commissioners Massachusetts Rhode Island to boundary-line, who line. admitted correctness of the former run Island on such terms as appointed agent Rhode an the matter conclude by might judge proper, agreed up line. most that Woodward and he who the stake set Saffrey should as the commencement of the .be considered 1711, 1718, Island Island agreement. In In Rhode sanctioned this line, again appointed to settle power commissioners with accepted agreed begin place. by the line should This was who the same Island, commissioners, accordingly and Rhode line run running approved Rhode Island. allegation fact, as to Island were mistaken commissioners Rhode of main river and not that the stake within three miles one and believed establish, tributaries, against is cannot assumed transac- of its tions which difficult strongly knowledge. do not imply, prove, (cid:127) mistaken, first the second surpasses commission was it belief that If almost again should be misled. mistake, only sustain the allegation appear, To of a must be made to not charter, within the commissioners believed it station was not within three that the to be miles,-of'the river, fact knowledge and that had no of a as to subject. inquiry location of it which should led make them to on the from, clear, if the calls of not still Even the charter had been deviated is were authorized bound, would be because her commissioners ' dispute. tho compromise whether";! chancery It doubtful a mistake against court relieve commit- could high not, ted so an It agency, in recent occurrence. certain that it couid the clearest mistake. except proof established, clearly charter, This mistake is either in the construction of Saffrey location station. Woodward proved, if the mistake would to disturb a of two Even were be difficult centuries Massachusetts under assertion of with the claim admitted right, Rhode Island form. and other colonies most solemn SUPREME COURT. v. Massachusetts. security rights, individuals, For whether of long states or possession, under title, claim -of is protected. And great is no' controversy there which this principle-may be greater invoked with than justice propriety, in cáse of disputed boundary. This was a case of original Court, jurisdiction Supreme now which came for final dis- argument, up. having partly aat former term, cussed and 12 Peters. reported A full statement of the with an case, of the historical analysis documents filed by would volume. respective parties, require The facts are court, recited df the which summarily opinion the reader is before requested peruse- reading arguments counsel. The case was Mr. and argued by Mr. on .Randolph Whipple, of Rhode Island, and Mr. and part Webster, Choate by Mr. on Massachusetts. part The of the will be understood arguments sufficiently points of the Mr. briefs counsel. respective Randolph transcribing ' cáse for Choate and Mr. Web- complainant. Mr. opened jf followed, ster defendant, and Mr. con- part Whipple on oehalf of Island. argument, cluded

' —: on the follows brief of the was as part complainant in the charter of of 1628, 1st. That the words Massachusetts most River, north the Merrimack and the north- three miles mijes River, south of thereof, and three Charles and-the erly part usual, thereof,” to their according most southerly ordinary, .part authorized three miles north and and long-established import, lin.es not Charles did the Merrimack and and compre- south of proper, of either. hend streams tributary words above construction 2d. That this was the given Massachusetts settlers, the first and the colonial government claim, their but erected bound- limited not thus only its mouth, the Merrimack near miles north of -three proper, house claims, and as well as when rival ad- at a 1636, opposing period line, her that.-she all forewarned settlements had along versary her chartered limit of the utmost rights. reached inducements, Massa- That, 3d. these stimulating notwithstanding a very over large to exercise any chusetts -neglected jurisdiction inhabitants, immediately territory who possessed -body “the reiterated when, from until upon north.of her under inhabitants,” received her she earnest solicitation inhabitants, who, subsequent to her according these protection own her people, had been along ambitious very pretensions, of sustenance soil, protection want her famishing own own government. from sur- Massachusetts 1638, 1639,. That up 4th. v. northern and'southern the same her lines. Taking both veyed borders, on both her found as'her she the. source guide principle south, on the and the Merri- streams the tributary line or near the north, on the her south Woodward running mack her from some station, north Lake Win- Saffrey all the New State thereby népiseogee, embracing Hampshire, Maine, all the extended State she nearly jurisdiction,- conservatism, not over both. severity, savoring strongly 5th. her That continued exercise jurisdiction' Massachusetts ordered being over these till extended limits except commissioners, somewhere about Maine away king’s when Mason, she John order disobeyed, proprie- to the king. tor his presented petition New Hampshire, coun- scrutinized merits of the were closely king-and claims and Common cil, Bench King’s the chief aided justices was unsuccessful her new pretensions, Pleas. old the Merrimack bound-house, to retire to the obliged proper. and council 1677 was 6th. the decree the king That are at which other liberty decision bodies merely, judicial judicial not, its" of a merits, to decision to or the. according respect — nature, to a revocable its grant relation very grantor grant, ; and not of that the will of of consequently territory jurisdiction, thus, to a revocation the old was tantamount king, expressed, one. and new issuing grant, into entered 7th. That the 1718 was 1710 and ¿greement of the commissioners, Rhode Island the representation upon arid sta- Massachusetts that the Woodward Saffrey commissioners and not three miles tion three was miles from Charles River proper, is stated answer streams, from its any tributary made, then or was ever no such Massachusetts. That pretension 1677. On the con- after decision made Massachusetts said by. into was entered of 1710 —1718 the whole entire trary, agreement that, station,was said Rhode-Island, under belief three .the .full miles, more, and no Charles from River proper. commissioners, said between 8th. That the matter in only dispute not as to the station last, first to the "was starting-place, from the ; was line that of the but in to course compromise regard that both starting-point; ever either party proposed station, it because the Woodward and Saffrey upon parties agreed River miles from Charles and to be three was believed represented dis- was not mistake ; that according .charter proper, covered until 1750. commissioners That 9th. Rhode appointed the execution Massachusetts, meet those order to complete find unable of 1710—1718 that being agreement from three miles to be Woodward station and Saffrey (still believed xx* vol. iv. SUPREME COURT. to measure three were obliged rpiles Charles River proper), termination line from its river, run an-east and west north of the that line miles erected monuments that (four upon and the State Woodward station), Saffrey bounds, still line, Íretended sland has to that indicated said re- claimed from that to'the maining, present; day 10th. That it never pretended by was Woodward station was the fruit of compromise, and Saffrey River, until that was miles from tributaries Charles the. commissioners, as late as of Massachusetts en- 1790, when the ; that, on the deavoured to defend their claims basis .con- Massachusetts,, up from 1710 -1718 her through trary, commissioners.,. the Woodward- uniformly- Saffrey claimed to to-charter; station, as according being agreement .the title, Island of as her her title, 1710-1718 only according chárter. answer, 11th. That the assertion claimed still and that’Rhode Isl- further south (to angle tree), and claimed these and-that, River riváfand proper, station, claims,-a medium is contrary

.opposing adopted, case, fact, the evidence in tó the body contrary entire if not mainly, active entirely, imaginings offspring learned anxious counsel. evidence, That is no 12th. answer coming, corpora- the. tion, case; more responsive much as to matter not bill. 13th.- to the town Massachusetts never Provi- granted That. dence the five thousand acres of land covenanted to stipulated.and that,, in a said of 1710-1718 court granted by agreement one-will ate covenants equity, although .independent, yet Best Pre- enforced without full of the' other. performance n : sumptions. that the facts the will contend 14th. these plaintiffs agree- Upon, —void, 17.10 ment. I. mistake. Because made under evident apparent That cannot to transfer miles acknowl-: four operate .of Island, as Colo1 Island, of Rhode edged because Rhode territory had no Massachusetts: ny, to transfer her power jurisdiction 3. a. That no can confirma- confirmation because presumed, tion of a void itself. agreement void ' 4. Because a have been record confirmation must Eng- land, if not Rhode Island Massachusetts, also a record, no case with- has loss gone length presuming out some piesumption. foundations first being laid .support under the agree- 5. Because claimed has always Massachusetts of 1710 there ment -1718, and never alleged pretended

was other title. 1846. Island ®. of the .bounds of 6. Because subject involv- case, has been at present various dispute ing periods commissioners of the before king, before king council, 1677,1737 and at various other times Connect- between Island; and no such icut and Rhode confirmation has ever been but the direct reverse. suggested, Cases as to Mistake Facts. “ manA to know the law. But no presumed man. can be to be with all presumed acquainted fact, matters and therefore an of facts does ignorance culpable not import negligence.” Sto- ry’s 156. Equity Jurisprudence, {£The rule is, that general an act alone, or contract made under a mistake or of a material ignorance fact, is voidable and relieva

ble Ibid., 155. equity.” If instruments mistake, delivered up owing igno rance of a transaction which would have made it unconscientious hold the instrument law, to. will proceed relieve. equity Madd. Practice. Ch. The case cited is the East India Company v. Donald, 9 Ves. A jr., charter-party delivered defendant, up áfter of which he voyage, provisions had violated, of the plaintiff being violation. ignorant It was agreed that there no- fraud nor but the court misrepresentation, said was. there was a mistake. plain Bernet, v. 1 Salk. 22. One Tompkins of three persons paid on a usurious bond, money and afterwards it back recovered mistake, he not paid by fact of knowing the usury. ££ v. Bingham Ves. sen. Bingham, 126, in An agree- ment was made for the sale of an estate to the defend- plaintiff by ant, brought who ejectment a title thereto support under will. The bill was to refunded, purchase as it money ap- to have been the peared plaintiff’s.estate. “ It was insisted that own fault, to plaintiff’s whom the .was title was and who had time to consider it. produced, “ Decreed for the costs, with plaintiff, interest for-the mon- bill; time of for the no fraud' ey bringing appeared, and the defendant he had Yet there right. was a apprehended mistake, such as the court was warranted relieve plain against, suffer the defendant run consid- away money, eration of the sale an estate had no to which right.” he Rhode Island her own instead"of the terri- gave .away territory, tory entitled to. 1 Vernon, -32. release aside Gee A set reason Spencer, case Luxford’s cited. misapprehension party. 2 Ves. sen. 400'. A relieved toas general-release against, par- ticulars not ‘in the knowledge party.

596 v. .Island v. 2 Bro. Ch. Á Gas. Llewellyn, conveyance Evans set into; no fraud entered though aside, as improvidently imposi- tion. more full this case is Cox. See The Leon- N. B. report and Leonard, v. 2 Ball ard BeatC. mistake- stands on the in an same agreement An omission Mistake. tit. Big-, fraud.. Chitty’s an omission'by ground ,; B. 3 Gordon, v. & Atk. 388 Ves. Ramsbottom 514; c. 6 Ves. note Bro. Ch. Cas.. ' (cid:127) Self, Pratt, 1 J. intestate,, v. Ves. sen. 400. dying Cocking who, four anrinfant, then months a after left widow daughter, with her mother into an' con- entered age," agreement coming estate; which agreement distribution personal cerning After ratified husband. was afterwards daughter’s bill, husband as her death, administrator, daughter’s brought a distributive share aside the have ac- to set agreement, to her right. .,cording' “ did not The intend to of the Rolls. clearly Master daughter value, share, her tWo..thirds of her full though than take less but what did not thought what that was' clearly appear; she . was her full share. for-her .-stipulated “ with a transaction be- The court will look eye jealous there has been veri and child. Whether suppressio tween parent does not clearly appear. foundation, it- that af- appeared is another interpose, But'there .. more, and the amounted that the éstate party terwards personal himself of to avail that to come here will be (cid:127)suffering permitted of, trifle, case some indeed” in the of knowledge, want not- ' ' it. set to The would be five must be entitled daughter, bounds á material sum more, which is or six hundred very pounds to set it The for the .court this, right.- daughter ground of a but took her full on the it. not act ground composition, did cannot so, the court suffer agree- share appears he husband, As the ratification was as to stand. ment dark.” much case, was cited in the June, above Griffith Trapwell, (twhere intestate, sisters, two one. died fhe leaving plaintiff’s administration, first latter wife. The got wife defendant’s for her-share.. agreement the other prevailed accept wife should further that-.the plaintiff’s There was'a agreement, n - share, she share,’ should have an a further equal reciting afterwards be a decree for there should that. plaintiff a bill of more, to be deal discovered estate a great brought the. were set aside.” review,' and-both decree agreement The executor &. et al. v. Wms. 354. Pooley Ray, Peere. of his master, and not before the mortgagee, coming admitting deed, and to have his report mortgage got proved paid,

' v. Massachusetts. debt, £700, amount of the whole report his. afterwards absolute. Afterwards it confirmed made under appeared, hand, £ own 353 had been mortgagee’s paid by mortgagor. defendant had creditors. paid away money tc of the Master Rolls. Let the see whether there has been master double as as to so much has been it payment, and overpaid must This, be allowed to the on was confirmed plaintiffs.” appeal, Lord Cowper. v. Articles, Honor I Honor, Peere Wms. 123. and a settle ment thereof, mentioned to in be made were made pursuance both before the settlement from but varied the uses of the ar marriage, ticles. Decreed to the settlement aside. set Chancellor. It is a mistake the settlement plain in'varying articles, and this the face of the upon appearing papers,' time, reason is immaterial.” plain thing, length Same case, ; 2 Vern. 658 1 Madd. 61. Ch. But a court of law will not a new trial though grant merely enable a court of witnesses, frésh nor would get party equity ; interfere on come the admissions from the where grounds yet himself, trial, after it bill filed party upon very discovery, different, in and the court will such case relieve. Maddock’s 1 Ch. ;77 Vernon, Cox, v. 2 12. Harkey Under circumstances, however,- peculiar excusing justifying in will not refuse their aid the-delay,.courts -equity furtherance jn no since such cases there is rights party; pre- tence to insist on laches or of dismissal ground negligence, of the suit. 1 v. 503, ; Lobdell 504 Creagh, .Story’s Eq. Jurisp. 1 ; 1, 4, 1 ch. Bligh 27, 255 B. (N. Fonbl. S.), Eq., p. ; 5, 2, 549, Cases, 3 Parl. case. Bro. note of to the above See Cox See ,1727.. 347, in Lord 123, in before Honor, 1 Chan v. Peere Wms. Honor 1710, n lim The articles same establishes principle. cellor Cowper, ' of of the wife. settle- the heirs body ited the estates to of the was articles) before pursuance (made marriage, .ment of the wife begotten. the husband of the heirs body of ie the settle a making It is mistake Lord Chancellor. plain articles,.” from the ment vaiy articles, further he And articles After reciting says, .;—“ which, is said to. be in settlement, so, pursuance being new intention, nor any no alteration shows there was articles, pf the and the settlement. articles the making between agreement, settlement, of the articles And this face appearing immaterial;”- of time is the thing, length of reason plain 545, 1 v. Atk. Co., The London Motteaux Ins. In the-case of fif defendants 1739, Halhead, paid the. plaintiff, of agent cent., which át the rate of per being teen pounds premium, from Fort St. then, at and the ship, was'the current premium the 7th of on was, August, a label of such agreement George, hook, of two Halhead a and subscribed entered in St. George'. from Fort made out directors. policy ‘..The ought that the mistake, policy rectified saying Lord Hardwicke conformed to label. to have Hardwicke Lord Ves. sen. Parne, Baker minutes parties. rectified an agreemenl'by previous Eldon rec- 592, Lord 5 Ves. v. Kilvington, jr. Barstow TERM, v. Massachusetts. a a tified settlement of See previous also * letter party. in a similar cited note that case. ease

Cases Compromise, after due deliberation, If an enter into for person, agreement claim made bond to which he compromising purpose fide, liable, to* -believes himself be nature and extent which' he is' of such a claim is a suf- fully'acquainted, compromise ficient consideration for the and a court of agreement, with- equity, out whether in truth claim, he was liable will inquiring compel 353; Atwood Russell, v.-, specific performance. Russell, .149, affirmed on.appeal. law,, If of- plain settled is party, ignorant in- principle his duced will.relieve yield.a portion right, indisputable equity doubtful, title is but where and with dúe deliberation he entérs into relief is.given, nor consideration into. compromise, inquired &. Sim. Stu. No for the remedy equity com- recovery money paid, action,, where the promise facts, knowledge full party the means of them at trial. Goodman v. proving 2. Jac. &. Walk. Sayers, of, rights, law1, but founded doubtful point A'compromise upon misrepresentation facts in the suppression knowledge - of one of the cannot parties Leonard v. only, be supported. Leonard, 2 Ball & Beatt. To constitute a fair doubtful in compromise right point law, facts this doubt should be Ibid. 181. creating stated. fairly It essential to of a validity hoth compromise parties inbe Ibid. 182. equal ignorance. Defence is not for compromise answer,;but ..proper plea 1 Ball & 323.. ofily. Beatt* Authorities as to Title. Presumptions of ££A land will never be grant time, presumed lapse unless be! so create the great belief that it actually made, or the facts and unless circumstances show that the party it is to have been made whom or presumed equitably legally to it.” entitled Note to on 296, Mathews ed. of Presumptions, ; ; 6 3 Cowen, 269, 1830 706 Johns. ; 109 70. 1 Wash. C. R. C. No of one a defective, under can raise a claiming title a of good Mathews, note; title. Harris 198, 5 presumption & ; ; Johns. 1 230 Harris 18 Beal v. 6 Harris & Johns. & Lynn, Johns. 336. ££ of law are Presumptions or suppositions opinions previously formed on of ex- questions frequent occurrence, béing found, to be accordant perience, of force generally truth, remain until evidence. repelled by contrary 600 v. I.sland “ fact of are conclusions drawn from cir- particular Presumptions of of law con- were formerly Many presumptions cumstances. contradiction, but this doctrine is admit too powerful sidered Mathews, doctrine estoppels.” confined now principally Evidence, ed., 146. 6th ;2 Phillips “ various. which rest are legal presumptions grounds upon of nature the laws general cases on principles In some others, incidents of general on the nature property.

justice, of self-interest and .which innate prudence, gen- on those principles men,” Mathews, &c.' 2. erally govern conduct of the law. Of originate policy legal Other presumptions however, as relate to examples this description, property, .are rare. ex- are such as are found fact “Presumptions usually or coincident with, to be consequent upon, pre- the.facts perience be to account with, and must correspond sumed. adequate They Mathews, 4. actually the circumstances for, proved.” of a facts transitory generally apply “Legal presumptions not character, evidence usually preserved which- proper &c., ; documents, not to unless public with care records ; Mathews, 4, been lost or note to have destroyed.” proved Greenleaf, v. 4 511. McKean, Brunswick “(cid:127) of the existence facts evidence Presumptions particular If cases, all, if not mixed and fact. law are, in many questions the fact can irrelevant to insisted evidence upon, such.as it, would err1 warrant court not fairly jury presuming are at it.” Ibid. them that p. instructing liberty presume ; Corcoran, 2 R. 5, note Bank United Peters’s S. C. States “ will, courts favor of long Following principle, pos- up as well the existence of instruments session, the-needful presume observance all such acts and solemnities conveyance, make actual valid.” assurances as are requisite an are and recoveries cannot exception, Fines pre- evidence to them. without directly pointing sumed crown, from the and grants assuran- though parliament, .Act are within even the récord, time constantly presumed, ces of Walk. 11 & Jac. legal memory. Cowp. Am. East, note, See authorities Mathews. p. been, sometimes, has held tD courts of Ignorance equity, to averred releases answer of demands. desertion afford it has* been ,of observed, judicially right, always supposes pre- it. It is absurd a man has relin- vious knowledge say, a, Mathews, 18;. of which he is aware.” right quished 11; per Wms. Wm. Grant, Ch. Peere Sir Sel. Cas. Mer. difference die there but little between doctrine England lost' in grants, regard doctrine and the presuming prescription, two principles. embraced by the'objects to in fee, extended to lánds never doctrine prescription it to such hereditaments', nor did extend incorporeal corporeal as of record matter many only spe- as could exist rights franchise, traitors’ or he. deodands, goods, felons’ cies royal n never ex- the doctrine hand, grants the other presuming On hereditaments; but, unlike the doctrine of to tended corporeal hereditaments, whether it eimbraced incorporeal prescription, record, or Patents by grant.'. matters purely evidenced by of, even, were acts crown, presumed parliament .the exist. n The great doctrines main- the two consisted difference between of time successful operation. ly necéssary length for it as exists doctrine of England Under prescription, Therefore, u established. must be immemorial usage day, bad no existence at time to be that tbe title presumed appears an end to the there is to the 1st Rich. power (1189), subsequent , agency prescription., em- doctrine ot hand, while the presuming grants On the other titles, children its were a rather*wider braced range objects of modern birth. though comparatively deemed.legitimate, doctrine, however, the whole of. its during minority, This latter' well many considerable opposition experienced wise* Poth. learned, Ev. lawyers. thep2d 3d and-. Wm. (1822), England, parliament put of evils growing judicial some were obligéd remedy commissioners themselves as The real éxpress fictions. property —: follows . “ late, for, the has been difficulties, pur- usual Amid these been has but which which long enjoyed, a right supporting pose within time of legal memory, to have originated shown can be a lost grant, pleaded fictioh clumsy resort servient, in fee of the seized some been made have person dominant, But, tenement. besides in fee of the another seized 'counsel, jury, its known judge, being.well objection is often-frustrated fact, the object is unfounded plea - been such tenements having fact of the two proof of. not; made in manner been .alleged fictitious- could grant act.” “it Best, observed, well this,” “In addition to all says of this kind artificial to make presumptions that the requiring juries tax on their cases, heavy amounted, many consciences* word, should be removed. which it was expedient highly - by leg- could remedied- only that the it became evil apparent , of Wm. 4 were islation, passed pur- statutes pose.” tt vol. rv. COURT!. v. Massachusetts. “ can be deeds of conveyance presumed, "Whether cases for their has the law has registration, made provision where doubted. Hirst, v. decided, in Doe 11 argued .point be, seems to Price, opinion though 475. The better the existence of the deed as. a cases presume will not in such court the fact is law, jury find, for the to mere open inference yet 1 Greenl. Ev. to 52. in other Note cases.” States, while doctrine a presuming grant United as well as to to heredita- corporeal incorporeal has been applied of its much at ments, and the operation very, enlarged, yet, sphere of its time, has operation the same circumscrib- principle safe, narrow, and in ed within probability very grounds. very the reach the innovation mere book law- It is placed beyond rests, fact, as a mere matter of and book yers judges, a sense of common jury. this matter of were flee to fact obliged England judges from the evils out of view, increasing growing as a rapidly refuge In this there country, subject, artificial presumptions. áre no It is a case of artificial circumstan- presumptions. simply - evidence. tial a—: Cowen, 725, 6 it is said A of lánd will never grant unless the time so as to create a presumed, great .be lapse ; belief that was made or unless the facts and circum actually show, that the to whom it is stances to have been presumed party ' made was or entitled to it.” Mathews on Pre legally equitably ; 296, note, ; Cowen, ed. 706 3 1836 6 Johns. 109 sumption, ; 1 70. Wash. C. C. 269 Rep. in Wendell, 2 13-15. Same principle Williams, v. 7 decided, In Ricard Wheat. this court “ time, a from a are Presumptions grant, arising lapse ap well as to hereditaments. plied corporeal-as incorporeal They be encountered and rebutted may by .contrary presumptions, and never- arise where all circumstances are can entirely consistent the non-existence of a A fortiori, grant. cannot arise the claim is such as is at when nature variance with the sup of a grant.” position “ Legal facts of presumptions generally apply transitory character, evidence of which is not proper usually preserved ; but not to with care records public documents custody with' charged oflicers preservation, unless proved destroyed.?’ been lost or Cowen & Hill’s to Phillips, In 3Íst 1 Ed. the seized'of the manor (1303), king being of Kimbolton, to which the of advowson th'e church was appendant, manor, said to granted the appurtenances, de Bo- Humphrey, hun, Hereford, Earl in tail general. Bohun, de the Humphrey deed, issue in his tail, in the 40th Ed. 3 (1367), the granted advowson, then full of an incumbent, to saia the' prior Stonely and his successors and at the.next avoidance held it in pro- usus; and prio made upon concurrentibus Us appropriation quere After the death the jure requirunter. incumbent, the said and his successors held said church prior until the appropriate, the' of the In 27th Hen. 8 the monastery. said (1530), dissolution manor Edw., descended to Duke of as issue to Buckingham, said estate tail. The reversion descended to VIII. The Henry Duke, ~ in 13th 8, Hen. was attaint of treason. In 14th high 8, Hen. the manor, said king granted &c., with all advowsons append- ant, to Richard and the heirs Wingfield, male of his In body. 16th 8, Hen. it was enacted that the Duke shall parliament, forfeit all manors, &c., advowsons, &c., which he had in 4th (cid:127) 8. Hen. “ The 37th Hen. king, and sold for granted the money' said &c., of fee, rectory, Kimbolton, inappropriate mesne conveyance came to the 12,000. for plaintiff £ the 37 Eliz., Beard, the defendant, did obtain a presentation of the queen by lapse, said was pretending church not lawfully ' n to the said appropriate prior Stonely. “ 1st. this, For who did it to the-said Humphrey, grant prior, it, for that did not nothing to. his ancestor by pass these words, Manorium cum pertinentibus.”- v.

Rbode , for in case, the advowson was In the bought paid Hereford, taker,. of. Earl until in the possession first It to a Í367, then granted corporation, . was sixty-four years. whose until the disso- remained Stonely,'in possession Í)rior VIII., monasteries, in the utioh of- the reign Henry to more. It descended one hundred sixty-three years forfeited, his attainder was Buckingham;, Duke upon to. the manor and advowson crown', and VIII. Henry granted ¡the was tried The action for a pecuniary plaintiff consideration. after the 1, 1627;, three hundred and in 4th twenty-four years Ja. commenced under first grant. 1Ó2, Horner, 1774. of Kingston upon Cowper Hull in. Mayor right mayor, declaration stated the plaintiff, into dues, Kingston. for certain goods imported water-bailiff certain tide, —: produced, plaintiff support books, A entitled par- An corporation entry are to. &c., as water-bailiffs duties, note of all such ticular and burgesses Kingston of. the the use mayor be received for and set down to the order Hull, prescribed, according that, continued, the', iri time use put mid year and. list were included 1575.” In this day, 1st present April, duties question. (cid:127) Eliz.,. requiring An order 13th. corporation,, &c. duties separate, Water-bailiff these keep of these duties account receipt Then followed particular who had 1678, of rented from 1648 persons from 1545 of dues water-bailiff; an account years also office who had 1726; dues paid in' and the testimony persons repairs by corporation an estimate together with' 15j000. amount £ n was, corporation earliest book defence that the the 27th of their charter the date the 19th Ed. (1346), time of legal , memory, Ed. century subsequent (1299) Rich.'l, ... to the duties title', question sup- That any, could. did or charter. That first only prescription' ported exist, by. That the within memory. a legal being corporation no duties. but granted the erection port, authorized charter three hundred .years that a answered, usage To this was in consid- duties, a a to grant was sufficient presume, ground had' it was in the proof corporation eration of which repairs, the the the action. bringing from done to constantly show that the two to said, there grounds Lord Mansfield were —: to go jury evidence sufficient to the king, a with duties belonging 1. That existed there port, a 2. grant by 5th Rich. the charter previous Consequently, ' with it. along duties the. 2 of the would carry Rich.. port 1846. z>. (cid:127) taken place.” were lawful unless chancery question ment, the time.” Reed, Here sons, shillings ed on ficient ground parliamentary may, upon proper way there presented possession, a hundred left to anis Any time out of prescription, dence, port tween 1382 pairs, its creating dqties. Fenwick The court admitted “ “ The evidence offered and The case Lord Mansfield 2. limitations, being properly kept original fact duties), In But answer written them between 1636 satisfied out of both is no If this charter erected a court it was questions question jury was, under But original length defendant, there other, the sides. positive possession king having mind, approved sixpence, p. evidence, (date, giving there. instituted whether p. survey, question, point properly-left that as a bar. sixty years,- Reed, there could be prescription, general advantage be credited or Johnson having 106. presume that according agreement evidence, be a Bayley, (p. 108). time, other rule there had been this these jury took charter), arises cannot be accounted in the column showing up. law, whether Barn. & kind, continued sixpence used & Humphrey length duties, a charter.” So, might evidence, possession rents believed that to circumstances.” direction, bound to Justice, rejected namely, to remain a new length a p. in the case of merely by way and 1441” plaintiff. “ accounted not, says, competent a legal presumed “ conveyance. A Ald. grant, and profits. 109. time be some charter upon column to be derived- the enfranchisement of copyhold his against rent jury jury port, time observing of time told of copyhold. is, commencement of upon of the estates when the functions conclude the a p. to draw is v. Ireland, “.Whether, Heath Was an Much within a hundred for, ground possession the —said, conveyance even concluded, (time of first case presume the consideration of re- freehold, instead of six for, and goes make the enfranchise- king and is jury, prescription, ^[*] YY As the against evidence claim these memory,-.is may which would p. evidence, “In cases where could there greater great way the consistent right “ that the until 109. from the would inference one did not premises entry, defendant’s public East, fifty-years’ was offer were this different. collecting grant plaintiff, actually house.” if suit may be un- right.” statute debts create case, exist, it be- 279, per-, real sup- king suf- evi- but' be- , n SUPREME COURT. 606 Massachuset ts. it had lawful was incumbent possession, originally ancestors them of a. to evidence give stronger conveyance.” Justice, “.In Abbott, Chief also my' says,— opinion, presump- have to too already gone tions conveyances great grants not extend them farther.” and I am lengths, disposed to. “— for the was a mere said, The question Bayley question jury whether there had been such The deeds of fact, conveyance. if both there had been a were con- 1747 and 1752 produced, also. No it would been draft of probably produced veyance, it, it, A conveyance or abstract referring produced. this Jo lost, to it ever existed.” sort was not been likely .have Waterton, 3 & Ald. case of Howson v. Barn: (1819), 150 174$, surrender in lands awas conveyance copyhold (in not void, for ; charitable was declared uses court) comply open Geo. ch. which of 9 requires ing provisions witnesses, in the two to be to be executed presence conveyances for enrolled chancery,, party year. survive.one enrolment. court was asked an presume The Abbott, — found, said, “No instance can be Justice, where Chief that an enrolment the court have said has been.presumed.” “— enrolment, if had As to said, appear- Bayley presuming searched, and a been had been ed that rolls chasm chancery that have been different.” p.. found about it might period, — said,. has Best, on “It Presumptions', p. says, that ; v. Hirst, Phill. & Ev. 476), 475 (Beanland Price, Am. cannot a deed in of memorial of county register registration and,that direct must be adduced.’.’ proof presumed, “ contend, that can is difficult there be any But mátter. circum- fact which may presume possession jury stances, when that are circumstances sufficiently true Conclusion to convince them its existence. The strong seems be, cage of a of a deed memorial requiring will artificial the court not- direct them to make registry, any pre- sumption.” Law Ev,, cites 1 same Best Greenleaf’s Ar. p. Greenleaf has been advised regard presumption, says to (p. 52), old new the. mortgages, conveyances reconveyance leases, mesne other trustees, assignments species and acts in evidence are documentary pais necessary a title, in all other support respects evidently just.” “It who sufficient asks for pre party aid. and a has title to the beneficial . sumption ownership,, long proved it not ; unrea not inconsistent therewith and has made possession sonable act or other es believe, the deed conveyance, sential merits title, Where are duly executed. these n He are not advised to make wanting, jury presumption.” 6 cites, Cooke, authorities, Doe v. Bing. other among numerous 607 ». Massachusetts. ; Reed, Ald. v. 5 Barn. 232 & 174 & Lowb. Doe Serg. 57; & Lowb. 2 Wend. Wilson, Livett Bing. Serg. 14-37. 3 “Defendant Wilson, case of Livett v. Bing. The lost. Plaintiff a of deed subsequently right way, (cid:127)pleaded by evidence. The contradictory traversed the There was grant. defend issue that, they thought directed the judge jury, upon than for more ant had exercised of uninterruptedly the. right way for the defend nnd deed, virtue of would years, by they twenty a. deed, ant. If there been no granted by had they thought way find for the would plaintiff.” should for the The rule to show cause plaintiff verdict why be not set áside was discharged. Best, said, an J., usage twenty C. that upon uninterrupted But a deed. even would be authorized years, presume jury must, in a would not be saying a. case judge justified but find a deed. might, “— deed, it is not a such' had been J., said, If there Burrough, . in dispute.” would have been constantly die way probable Lowb. & Cooke, Serg. v. The case of 6 Bing. (19 Doe 174 but Court than was a case more twenty years’-possession; 44), a'term. surrender Pleas not of Common would presume case, Tindall, circumstances After stating the particular — J., : which any presumption C. “No case can be says put .in shown made, by party been where-a tide has' been has except some substance, wanting who calls for the presumption, good I-n such of form. to make it point collateral complete matter consistent have been case, shown to where the been it ever and in such cases only, fact has presumed, allowed.” 1 R. v. Merivale’s said, in Whally, Sir Samuel Romilly Whally case. The affect this of time cannot Length (1814): —r“ for what to see purpose not and it easy statute does apply, not. unless relief equity, is no bar to it is here Time insisted upon. cases all other &c. cases mortgage, .it excepted of evidence.” it only operates by way uncle to a from an filed to aside a conveyance The bill was set inade- gross a after charge fraud years, forty nephew deed, ground The court sustained quacy price.. consideration, but, as it a it was not merely pecuniary ” ; and consequently affection stated, was also for love and time. Eldon, about court, said nothing Lord bar, a a by that time counsel admitted opposite evidence afforded suffi- law, the rule but that it strict analogy cient p. raise presumption, Lords, R., House McDonald, McDonald v. Bligh’s attorney, upon agent was the a client his case of against

Rhode-Island v. Massachusetts. It transaction was a case of twenty-five years standing.' con- fidence. case, The Lord Chancellor Redesdale there- says: —“ fore, circumstances,- its' is taken out of the principles pre- ought sumption prescription, protect professional view,of case, and a fair On these grounds, .men. jury- man, it is that the bond was not intimated.” my opinion & Veal, Wood Barn. Ald. was the case land un der to 1818 lease from-1719 as far as could extend memory watched, had been used un lighted, public, paved, act which was enumerated as one of the parliament, der streets of Westminster. It submitted court whether there jury them that there be a dedication public, telling might high- them without a done thoroughfare, telling way nothing fee, lessee, without consent owner would give “— J., said, Where the Bayíey, public. right way a limited can continue having right, consent is. only person for a limited period.” v. Richardson, Barn. & Ald. Barkee Same principle. that, v. East, 409, decision, is a no 10 Wright Smythies, pre- (cid:127) if. of a can be because it enrolled existed presumed, sumption grant it be shown. might — 663, said, it In v. & was Winch, 2 Ald. If Vooght Bam. river, and that all it is admitted that this was a his navigable public, it, a to use an for right twenty obstruction Majesty’s subjects not have the effect of his sub would years preventing Majesty’s it.” from using p. jects “— 17, said, In Mathews is That no Presumptions, p. of raise a in favor of time will encroachments length presumption ; least, on the been mentioned as has public yet period binding community.” cited; Murcott, East, 199, v. 2163, and 7 are Carter 4 Burr. J., Baker, R., Parsons, et al. v. Mass. 4 Stoughton says: “— it on owner of a or holds water-mill dam condition Every left for or limitation that a sufficient the fish. This passage-way is not limitation, for benefit of the being public, extinguished inattention no laches can be or by any neglect, imputed it no runs.” time against government, v. 3 court Wilson, Livett instructed the Bing. R. no deed of of that if was the're thought right way,- jury, they must notwithstanding find they possession, accordingly, “— Mathews, assent-of adverse p. says, apparent in all true and is, sort, of this essential of cases source party inference; evident, a total that, fact, without disregard this cannot be claim a where the has formed constant maintained of source contest.” 609 v. creditors, under an 19, also, as of Mathews, as- tq body See benefit, answer to for their an of trustees also being lapse signment expected, their collective tíme, such persons being capacity, to use. the same as individuáis. 3 12 Ves. Ves. diligence 136, 158. Peters, was a case al., Piatt et (1835), Vattier even; without claim of clear years, adverse forthirty possession —u court And or the shadow of an excuse. The we say, p.416, time-is, that principles are lapse of opinion suit, a clear the- court of bar to. independently present equity, been a adverse the statute. There has clear thirty trust estate years, any equity acknowledgment .without no, bill, circumstances are stated shown Bartel evidence, which overcome decisive influence of such adverse J. §tory, Per possession.” McIntire, Peters, the'common Miller v. was (1832), statute, of limitation of a in a court of where case bill equity, time used evidence. and not where analogy, applied Points the Respondents. two first, case complainant’s proceeds upon propositions March, 1628, intended charter Massachusetts her line three miles south trace as .what is boundary southern is now Riversecond, called Charles the main what now stream of

: has to have the same line complainant right therefore time, at this without regard decreéd thing boundary charter. taken since the date has place these, And, first, controvert. respondents Both propositions trace, as their contend, that the intended southern charter Charles, all the waters line miles south boundary, basin or three miles south éhole; valley, as a geographical its stream,s which pre- the sources contributory feed serven. two construc- between these enable the court to determine To to a it is to advert contend, great will tions, competent character, evidence, the situ- of extrinsic circumstances and body ation, knowledge ignorance and of age, objects parties, of or non-existence distinctive localities, the’ names existence and, above streams, all, exposi- contemporary contributory agé afforded acts instrument parties tion the charter subsequently. that as the this lan ,And position, maintain point they st River, charter, south three miles guage flexible, such is thereof,” general, and every part vague,' order resorted to in is indicated be evidence above may extrinsic n even, if the it; used that in the sense which parties to ascertain may sense, be a legal bears prima particular fronte, language 77 iv.' VOL.

610 ®. Massachusetts. different, ; this used in a one that might to have been shown ; individuals recent, if the and between done, even grant is be done the instrument ancient that-it multo when may fortiori of a is the charter State. ,of will of evidence law support proposition ; 3 290, Cowen’s cited Ev. 295 Greenleaf's §§ 286 — ;14 16 Wend. ; ; R. 1362, 1389 6 Pick. 63 16 Johns. Phillips, ; 369 ; ; ; 13 2 New R. Hamp. 663 6 Mass. Pick. 261 R. 435 ; 1403-1405 ; 1 M. 3 ; & K. 6 54 Cowen’s Phillips, 571 Sim. ; 313 1 300; 1 19 Johns. R. Mason, 1 Mood. & Malk. 10, 12; ; 3 Barn. ; -225 ; Lawson, 16 1 223 445 Conn. & Bing. 3 Camp. & 728. Adolph. far charter are so vague show that the terms in this These cases con-, that flexible, complainant’s even legally import they intended. 7 that a different one was structiohj it be proved máy ; Inst. 282 ; Peters, 3 5342 See, too, Sim. 310 Atk. 576. 16 403. 2 Brod. & Bing; mean- then, original the question to discuss Proceeding, circumstan- charter, surrounding under view of ing — -ces, maintain, will respondents ; that, 1. That the burden tine complainants proof out of been never being having possession, possession, centuries, two after of more than presenting question lapse make, clear should be their construction they judicial holden (cid:127); ; Brod. & Bing. Pick. certainty most 2. That is to be construed favor liberally the charter it was grantee, monopolist because- grant people 1 Bancroft’s His of that and of all generations. ; ; Peters, 7 Pick. 351-354 tory, in aid' of the 3. That no or consideration there is circumstance ; that themselves the words complainant’s interpretation, beyond that their interpretation; never had under they possession south what there is no and fountains streams proof al have not now River the main stream of what is now Charles that theré is ; and proof Charles Rivér ways reputed parts Metcalf, were so depositions See anciently they reputed. case Massachu Cowell, Ware, Mann, into papers put - 415, 463. setts, 30 32 Summ. pp. l Douglass’s themselves, the words That there is evidence judicial in such charter, date of this age used'by parties, the sense instrument, even contended fronte, bore prima that sense :that do not complainants obviously import not, would that, court evidence, the absence other d so con centuries, facie, of two even against prima strue them. And, e contra, aid of interpretation, respondent’s — will contend* 1846. 611 Rhode Island ®. Massachusetts. it, 1. That favors arising long presumption possession. senses, which is 2. words bear two that most may That and colonist will be settler, taken, beneficial grantee, than that most beneficial to the monopolist grantor. rather (cid:127) 3. the words more themselves That.- obviously naturally sense claimed the remonstrance. import 4. the more reasona- construction imputes probable, .That.their ble, and since, usual conduct to Under these parties, complain- ant’s construction, the be and-uncer- fluctuating would boundary one, tain' a river ; and would'divide between varying reputation

n States, to one and the sources con- main stream giving Whereas other, fluent waters to strife. thus promoting obvious of this river to Massa- charter was whole design give Howard, chusetts. 1 186. , 5. the whole That is settled question contemporaneous that of the- Massachusetts, from exposition; planting colony, tó, and and notorious in. under, took according open more enforcement of her doctrine of going present interpretation, of what than three south of is now the main stream miles what is^ de- ; now and. all the Charles River that during properly period 1750, neither and down to. nominated contemporary, year crown, Island, Connecticut, nor nor Rhode Plymouth, objected but’on as- interpretation, contrary expressly repeatedly it; 1664, Island in sented to 1711 1638 PLymouth conduct Massa- 1718, Connecticut in 1713. And this chusetts, con- of her assertion interpretation, principle interested, of all constitute a assent temporary adversely others in- circumstantial evidence favor body on would decisive the cause point terpretation, alone. took maintained 1.- That Massachusetts show, posses To and. doctrine construc under her from the earliest period present sion ; I. 35 of R. 34, 47, Evidence 29, 30, tion will cited, Bill,— ; Journal, 1 284 ;3 .; Evidence, 56,63, 104 Winthrop’s Borden’s 1, 401, 186, ; Connecticut Me ; 185, Trumb. 402 1 Hutch. 108 101, 104, ; 90, 105, morial, 4, ; Answer, 53, 5 I. 8 of R. Ev. ; 119, 1791, 3 Mass. 121; ; 1 111, p. Hutch. 208 Mass. Rep. Ev. 22. Rhode Isl Connecticut, and To show 2. assent Plymouth, — ; ; 1 401 ; Doug. 1. 1 1 Hutch. and. Wint. 284 208 Plymouth, — 89, R. I. Ev. 1791, Connecticut, 3. Of 2. Rep. p. Mass. — Ev. Island, Mass. 121, Memorial, 3. 4. Connect. ; 56, R. 22 I. Ev. asserted such a show Massachusetts would not To had be- unless she such a doctrine possession,, interpretation, charter, of her sound, true meaning knew the lieved that.she 1 Hutch. 388.; 439, 440, 474,476.; see Met. Bancroft, v. 'Massachusetts. ; Minot, 113, 115, ; 106, 107, 1 Belknap, 249-251 Hist, I. 46 2 5 R. Ev. Doug. Brad. Mass. of localities. assented with full knowledge 4. That Connecticut 104, 121. ; R. I. Ev. 3, 4, Mem. 7 Conn. the complainant’s interpre- court should be opinion If the con- still is established respondents tation certainty, judicial cannot be that, tend, of matter ex bill reason facto, by post — maintained, Island, noton 1. Rhode charter bounds complainant’s on her actual Massachusetts, charter line of occupation Peters, time, line. which extended south to 14 present 247(cid:127) the then bound- existing 2. Declaration By Independence their lines, became the without regard true States ary-lines iürisdiction, origin, by any historical and those are unalterable lines Peters, 12 681. to bring 3. not. for the That competeht complainants is in a by into court equity, of this contestation matter boundary 1 73 laches. Eq, and Story’s reason gross prolonged ; 2 ; Howard, 168, ; 1520, 1522 Eq. 1 193 2 64, a) Story’s (§ §§ ; ; 1 Sanborn, Bell v. Story’s R. 215 8 Clark & Fin. 650 Story’s ; 393; ; 9 Ch. R. 550. Peters, 13 Pick. 417 5 Johns. R. 215 ; Peters, ; & time. 7 6 61 2 Jac. barred 197 They by Paige, are ; ; & Lef. ; Walk. 2 157 12 R. 2 191 Ch. Sch. Molloy, Eng. 636. title indefeasible 4. That the respondents perfect title linó, soil and by up existing prescription, jurisdiction on century, more than highest

resting Peters, titles of sacred of the 261. most nations. 14 line That has established 5. existing conclusively by accord, award, ; deliberate agree- treaty by compromise,, com- arbitrators, óf of the ments ministers agents, plenipotentiary acts were whose plainants, subsequently expressly ’implica- themselves, as a ratified tion complainants government. — contend, hereunder the And respondents will That, Í711, 1. in 1718, commissioners were again ap- Massachusetts, Island and full powers pointed determine and settle, line of ascertainment, by compromise ; and that did and establish the now boundary they existing agree as the I. id. line R. Ev. seq. boundary. That, commis-. line, 2. this determination making ; Island had material- facts sioners full knowledge were uninfluenced com- any representations ; .that, so, missioners if this is of Massachusetts the case' Peters, concluded. 14 260. of this And support position, will on the the' want respondents rely proof complainants show such mistake or on legal misrepresentation, presumption 1846. 613 and on the and circumstantial it, direct probabilities, ¿gainst case. evidence because to have 1. That the are against presumptions appears, of material facts would manifest gross neglect been ignorant ; Greenleaf, and this never official presumed. 40,.p. 47 duty,; § ; ; ; 12 Wheat. 69 199 Johns. East, Cow. Phill. 296 3 19 R. 2 ; 11 Wheat. 74. 347 Peters, 12 alone relief. 32. 2. of law Mistake ground 22; localities. Mass. Ev. That must have known the I. id. R. Ev. seq. absence of That fraud misrepresentation facts commis commissioners mistake of relief of Rhode Island would be no against sioners ground ; and is no ‘of fraud or that there misrepre agreements proof —151; 1 Peters, 280; 2 Wheat. 14 146 Story’s sentation. Eq. §§ ; Merlin, ; ,6 Toullier, ; 11 ; 70 62 4 Johns. 178 11 Wheat. 59 1 ; ; Heineccius, 101 9 Dowl. & Story’s R. Ryl. Peters, 276 6 Pick. 154. Eq. § 1711, 1718, That the Rhode Island Assembly votes her and Rhode Island long and 1749 Evidence), (in her com- acts of or work a ratification prove acquiescence, missioners,. con- alone, so long That mere silence and inaction it; or tinued, work acts. Would these are prove unequivocal 253, 255, on 256. Story Agency, §§ acts, it is That, 5. to avoid the of those votes operation n to aver that government competent Assembly legally ; facts or other Island were of the localities of Rhode ignorant it is averment, if that, by it were to disproved make competent evidence. and circumstantial direct presumptions, on and Ames Ang. Corp. Phill. 288 Wheat. Cow. Cranch, See, 129. Peters, 603; Peck, v. ; 11 Fletcher is to to that official too, duty the cases presumed point supra be done. one a new run deserted, to if the is 6. That line existing it, thefcharter, as an open question, to the true sense according and 7. 6Aus. far south of its be removed must present place. com- on the stated above illustration points to and three days referring Mr. Randolph' occupied plainant, and other documents ancient grants papers. reading re- argument to himself Mr. confined branch Choate —: viz. following points, from the two sulting 1. charter. The true interpretation &c. pf 1713, 2. acts this. The skeleton of Mr. Webster's argument —: The case Island rests on two propositions Rhode zz VOL.IV.

614- Island disputed her, 1. That territory, belongs according ojfthe true construction charters. original 2. That she has done surrender, abandon, or nothing yield her original or close into right those up territory, inquiry óriginal rights. these, we maintain four Against propositions. 1. That belongs according territory charter, of her and that no subse- just original interpretation . law, acts of crown or courts nor acts of British quent own, her or lessened her in this right impaired respect. 2. That the line to which she now has been up possesses established fair and seated and between agreements explicit executed mistake, two without parties, misrepresentation means of both sides and that knowledge she has equal held dates of those possession accordingly, agreements. 3. if otherwise, entitled, . That all this were Massachusetts limitation, to her by prescription hold the limits of equitable possession. present Island, her own laches, 4. That Rhode neglect pre- . her cluded claim to the asserting disputed territory, she claim, ever had such or from for discussion opening question now. Mr. conclusion. Whipple, reply into three inde- case divides itself separate naturally snd The. questions. pendent virtue Did territory belong disputed called the ? charter of Province commonly charter affirmative, decide that If ‘the should question court be, will Has Rhode Island transferred question portion next ? the contracts of 1710-1718 territory by con- were not affected those If the Rhode Island rights be, will Are then the third tracts, remaining question only ' ? affected, time . or in any way impaired, of 1691 confer this the Province charter territory I. Did ? counsel very correctly with the inasmuch as propositions, commence arguments to be the of Island has admitted this territory territory Rhode Massachusetts, contracts and has suffered the of 1710 — from down the Massachusetts to remain Rhode order Island, in that it is incumbent time, upon to. present (cid:127) under influences, to establish a adverse title the counteract these it. that no two minds can differ clear, concerning so possibly charter or to fall. The title of are to stand this test we willing By two minds can the charter is so clear Island under has as been to im- it. made differ about Hardly attempt yet of the settles it. statement question it. The very peach of Massachusettrtis the of territory The charter 1628-describes “ River three north Merrimack between a line miles lying north, on the and a line thereof,” of and every any part “ River, of and of every miles south three Charles any north thus limited on the thereof, on the south.” The lines lines, other. The to be east and west each were parallel south Massachusetts, the line charter Rhode subsequent southern line Island.-- Island, 1663,. is constituted the northern of Rhode words, their obvious contend that these them We yielding miles south natural no doubt. Three of. admit import, is no than River, théreof, and: more and every part Charles any River, three miles south Charles every part embrace,all latter intended River. Thése words were Charles the river., ,contends Islahd the southern curves the intended, line of three miles from Massachusetts was be northern stream, or the southern line Merrimack main and the proper, the-most of the main stream of miles from southerly-part River; that this called for 'construction is imperiously Charles words, the natural and obvious contera import construct* of all the and grantees, grantors parties, poraneoús and all the colonies, crown including adjacent ' , down to words, is the obvious “three What conveyed by meaning ”, ? tribu- miles south River Do they Charles comprehend stream, head or miles south of of which ten tary the Charles Do River,” may fifty ? the words three miles west Mississippi mean three miles west of sources its tributary, ? or Missouri Would between nations grant territory (either River, ten miles the Ohio north or there- individuals), any part two ,of, northward, all the hundred include because territory miles north ? Wabash, its extended that distance principal tributary, streams, in names assigned have different been Why tributary civilized, times*, nations, ancient and modern savage ? main included -Have stream tributary geographers, ever cities historians described Frankfort Treves as Rhine, ? Or have streams into the. Rhine because upon emptying ? named as Maine and Moselle they invariably “a stream of water flow- Webster defines river large ocean, in a river. A lake, channel toward another ing stream, flow.” large copious (cid:127) than a current of water Johnson it is' “a land says bigger hrook.n a small stream running Massachusetts surveyed char- Charles, south -into for the River as and Charles name ter. At that main stream early period, acquired far of its River, westward junction ' brook brook. called the But the surveyors m v. Massachusetts. — main, River, as River, and it as Charles the mapped — As stream; 1670, down river itself. as omitting early lay Brook, the name of Jack’s Pasture not- this brook had acquired Massachusetts withstanding impress upon attempt Before 1700 it name of

name Charles River. acquired built it. All the Brook, Mill mills and having public towns, and individuals referred grants corporations, private the Charles, and to this brook as main stream the Jack’s Pas- Mill Brook, ture Brook. the same of Massachusetts made distinction be- The people tributaries, brook, one of and its that all the other tween a river human had made from creation members of the family Wp therefore, that world down period. words say, construction, and never charter admit but one have received a different construction. those words This was put upon by grantees construction the territo- grantors territory jurisdiction, the jurisdiction, Company, grantors

ry, Plymouth All Massachusetts and council! parties, grant- king Massachusetts, words, so understood these ors of limited accordingly. possessions construction now contended for would have-car- extended ried the northern line Massachusetts to Lake Winnipiseogee, and west line from that have embraced an east lake would of New all of Maine. Stgte Hampshire; nearly as December 30th, 1621, But the Council of Plymouth early Robert ten Sir miles granted Gorges by thirty, territory- die Salem, northern Massachusetts Cape Bay, embracing Ann, &c. 1628, the to Massachu- In same'Council Plymouth granted west, Merrimack setts a line east three miles from tho running River. 1629, In over the terri- and council king granted jurisdiction to Massachusetts Council. tory ceded Plymouth November, 1629, In the same Couneil Plymouth granted at the what is now called New Merrimack beginning Hampshire, River. Mason, said was made to another April, grant Council, of of boundaries. New difference slight with Hampshire, Mer- as the as far south consequence grants these subsequent rimack, 1636, erected her bound-house three with-the near miles Merrimack its proper, junction north the trial fact Mason, ocean. When before pressed council, this house the -king gave observed that Mas- of a it must be name But possession-house. more never extended sachusetts that her territorial rights claimed In the be- than miles north of die trial Merrimack proper. TERM,, 1846. ». Massachusetts. council, she renounced formally the king fore is over Her king, claim. grant jurisdiction words, verbatim) the same was .. the territory (described of Plymouth. to her the Council granted to. an extension of of Massachusetts The ambitious pretensions the Maine, and New her over Hampshire territorial jurisdiction ' n out the fact, arose in and Gorges, to were Mason which rights 1636, the inhabitants that, Hampshire, being after New destitute*^ the Cburt of of government, General powers petitioned taken, and to be under their Massachusetts government protection. a number of' these Massachusétts refuséd to grant petitions three miles north of the had her bound-house erected 'She years.. the to take inhabitants of the had refused '.Merrimack She proper. north under her becausé protection, towns immediately adjoining did not reach them. In her that she was aware her jurisdiction council, before and in Mason the answer to .of king charge the “ in those eastern 1676, she her whole admits management that solicitation most the reiterated and earnest was not without parts there inhabiting.” people become, reit- had awakened by-these When her ambition fully solicitations, and she Woodward erated and earnest employed lines, to north and south and after run her discovering Saffrey streams, run their line on a all its river tributary comprehends Maine, as New and the north so to and comprehend Hampshire the the south as to so -comprehend territory dispute. suits, claim in a series of which ex- This resulted extraordinary a one of tended over a which century, period nearly every were overruled. of Massachusetts pretensions trial was had between Mason formal protracted Massachusetts, chief before two colony justices for the and council. of Ma.- king sitting complaint England, contain the elements son Massachusetts answer Massachusetts renounced claim wholé formally controversy. than north of the more three miles Merrimack territory the. proper. trial of New in relation to Hampshire, subsequent rights at a three miles she filed her written claim begin point ocean, into Merrimack, where itself north empties crbtch, to follow the of the river to where course thus stream's form union two Merrimack tributary proper, as did in tributary-stream princi- she the.whole disclaiming, — which her the whole she right bases ple, principle upon Island. now claimed territory and all then, herself, Wé that- find, to the territo- the Plymouth Council grantors these given council jurisdiction, king ry, “ River,” which words, construction niiles n (cid:127)* . zz vol.iv. Islalrd ®. Massachusetts. now Rhode Island to them the construction which has gives been to them all nations given among ages. land A faint has made disturb very been attempt smoothness of this current of resort authority by contemporaneous grants of that territory was, The result jurisdiction. attempt ” case where the has been a river every boundary simply, tributaries and sources of the river New excluded. “York, in instrument, one came east as far as Connecticut River. She did ,not claim east river heads of the proper, easternmost stream, but to the river itself. tributary When heads and sources of rivers were “to the intended, uttermost heads and sources thereof” were the invariably expressions employed. After the .most minute and extended search into-all widely grants, public from 1620 down to the private, period, present^ not an instance has been found in has boundary river ever been extended beyond river itself. We tire construction these words say, given therefore themselves, parties accords grantors grantees, obvious ordinary meaning. (cid:127) But if additional any matter could these of views this strengthen it will fact, be found question, in the in that this construction to,,, was these given council; in.1684, words and by king charter of Massachusetts of void, 1628 was vacated and declared in 1691, charter, and another ealled charter, the Province was granted. The of Massachusetts,/ limits both as to and territory were jurisdiction, same words as those by expressed precisely contained in the charter of 1628. these words, grantors Upon a certain no matter for this wheth- had.impressed meaning, purpose er the or an 1628, The ordinary meaning. extraordinary grant of unlike a- of grant was in its nature. revocable A property, very of grantee or other holds no other jurisdiction, by political power, ^tenure than the Mas- discretion or the granting caprice power. sachusetts existed will of the colony during pleasure and council. king of a or the- She whole iriight deprived part her moment, and with' without jurisdiction sufficient any any cause. to It council to decide belonged king arbitrarily, how chose, or how little much should be or'taken granted, It to away. them to the terms belonged meaning explain them Their in employed. action this is legislative, respect than rather and the effect of their conclusive judicial, action is ‘ Massachusetts charter mankind. the Province accepted from the council, king after the coun- king same had cil decided, that three miles Charles River meant stream, the main or Charles River proper. It is therefore, what this court to unimportant, deem be the may terms. .usual these ordinary meaning granting party here has sense which these -terms used in are explained, 1846.. 61D Rhode v. Massachusetts. to whom the made knew that such grant

grant. party that and under- was the meaning explained grantor, — one understood stood the' meaning explained party,'and — other must this court be governed/ therefore, Island, we that On the of Rhode we do say, mind doubt, that, human- show, under beyond capacity line of the south Province charter due east west line, north line of Island was be Rhode of Charles River at a three miles south ginning proper. point has II. In the «of the second Rhode Island point,/ discussion of 1710-1718', the contracts we must her parted right by settled,’ had the right, that in she under the charter. consider , of these contracts, of the effect we order to must judge fairly main character, nature arid consider their par- objects terms, ties, their in relation to subject-matter, powers their intentions. employed express both that consti- In the first instruments parties agree, place, tute but one contract. of 1791 The commissioners..0f report 1710— 171S as a sub- (p. agreement Bill), speak but The answer Massachusetts sisting agreement. throughout; — treats both instruments forming particularly pp. the; one and not a addition, of 1718 contract, agreement being substitute, to the of 1710. Nor is it contended agreement that the of 1718 was take the argument, agreement place ascertain In the was to next parties sole place,.the object were the true four acts passed charter line. From 1705 ac- the line Island, settle commissioners appointing Island were and Rhode to the charter. Massachusetts cording were aware and -both fully colonies the mother' country, of her to transfer any portion Island' power possessed an incurable There incapacity territory sell, portion Island to in Massachusetts purchase, any (cid:127) to sell Rhode Island Neither power territory. possessing the law will purchase territory, presume neither that It not view. consideration pretended object must, was taken as the therefore, to It be Rhode Island. paid 1710, sdle to find the commissioners in the object meeting the con- line', 1691. The to dividing according charter tracts the most as their themselves this object, explicit express “ manner. set Woodward stake They agree,' up by River, in 1642, according miles from Charles Saffrey three being to charter, sides, as the commencement allowed, on both line,” commis- the Rhode Island &c. This line admitted was (cid:127) River, sioners to the authority be three Charles miles from upon of made con- Woodward and Saffrey, map Supreme court. , Rhode Island n. Massachusetts. “ states, us, now shown forth to tract remaining.upon.record the Massachusetts These commissioners were-Gbv- government.” not and Governor Jenckes. did Dudley ernor They go upon at the land, midwinter, but met house of Dudley, Rdxbury, miles to If fifteen from localities -referred in the map. there must have been the,premises, surveyor .ap- upon mentioned his name. This would have pointed, report River, states that the station was Charles ac- three miles map to head of charter, whereas it is three Jack’s miles cording from-the called River.. Brook, Pasture brook being map (cid:127) that the station of these sworn it By map surveyors, appears River, three from Charles. commissioners was adopted by miles miles fact, to the charter.' In it was seven according point Massa- This was map upwards. produced by Dudley records. it he chusetts What Jenckes represented- represents confided in that the this and admitted starting- integrity map, was three to the charter. River, miles from Charles point according fact, fact, it was over seven. point point miles of Rhode commissioner admitted that over four to this-admission And was belonged territory a false of false through made-upon representation, pa- medium 'This was the based work pers. .map principle and council in asserted king exploded by renounced, Massachusetts in explicitly in 1737. subsequently Wé show, it was of the intention attempted to transfer one to the acknowledged parties territory from other, neither ob- that the possessing requisite power, only ascertain line called for the charter. Rhode ject, line, Island admitted this line tb be the true charter a false Is she.bound it representation. legally equitably? It fact, three miles, not that being according charter. Was miles, it three the basis ? it is being contract Because miles, miles, three to run states, we map agree if. the line such a course to-Connecticut River. it turns out Suppbse that, mistaken, or both were at a station parties they began tha^one seven miles from the three, river instead of is not the admission void, on the ? mistake If had intended ground parties commence at the stationj Woodward without regard Saffrey its distance from the without river, its regard conformity

-charter, were those words inserted in ? If why the contract had intended to bind their whether States respective absolutely, miles, station was three miles or ten insert those did they why ? words contract Jenckes did know whether map correct not. He trusted to its But in solely truthfulness. error, case of he did not mean to bound. He being says, miles, three- charter. This is reason according my agreeing 184 6. Island ®. Massachusetts.

Rhode absolute, and not con- taken to be if the admissionds it.” But to ditional, a without meaning. They then these words are entirely contract, or are sur- as the basis inserted were plusage. ; 1 Hammond, Equity, 11 Peters’s Story’s Allen Rep. has claimed the 143, b. herself disputed territory Massachusetts as ceded not Rhode territory, from 1710 to the present day, under the contract, but Massachusetts territory, to her charter, to contracts. admitted such by Massachusetts (cid:127) -6 10. Answer, of 1840 defendant’s pages Page plea into is entered that where a contract It is a general principle, instrument, a executing provisions prior purpose con- settled, are and the subordinate which the rights parties instrument, that it made in tract declares is prior pursuance be mis- from that is that instrument presumed any departure settlement, declared to be take. A pursuance marriage from the articles, is articles. void so far it marriage departs on Marriage “Settlements. Atherly (cid:127) void, it a is does settlement, it though case post-nuptial because, after the articles, not that was in say pursuance from consummated, the depart marriage parties power articles. (cid:127) mistake, This case combines three either of elements sufficient invalidate the contract. is. The contract declares that it was charter. pursuance had no from charter. parties power depart 3. It of .a material fact. was made upon misrepresentation This the contracts. is one answer the effect of them, the ground that Massachusetts attempts support doubtful; under charter was the right- farther still smith under the claimed tributary-stream principle that, with Island claimed to Charles River proper, knowledge localities, all the the map knowledge stream, tributary from Woodward and was drawn Sáffrey Woodward and Saffrey Rhode Island commissioners agreed station. To we various answers. give doubtful, clear 1. That under the charter right miles from a the line The charter conclusive. -gives three fixed and permanent object. Island commis- is not a tittle that the There proof, the Wood- knew that sioners localities, either knew the that they stream. ward and from station three miles tributary Saffrey On all the way. bther contrary, proof be three the station to miles itself map represents River. Charles states miles The contract River, brook river, Charles calls according charter. The'map v. Massachusetts.. , a delineation of Instead-of and omits' River entirely. lay- Charles river, into it. it down brook ing emptying represents and the station as three miles River, the brook as the only itself, that the from river.. contract states only persons The that line to-attend within six' thereafter to be to-run the “were appointed and the line of Woodward Saf- months thereafter to show ancient " that to raise renew the monuments.” This frey, proves the The the to this not shown localities. parties agreement-were' that 1718, line until then the. commissioners was not run report line, and not went to the station and run the it does appear they admeasurement river, that of them went the or made near any their its distance from the station. It was report duty their law proceedings, they performed .and the presumes ’ duty\ in. assumed There is another fatal to the argu- ground objection ' commissioners ment. court is asked to that the The presume the localities, also that Rhode Island knew all knew Woodward three station was seven miles' r. an Charles Rivey.and Saffrey commissioner miles from a stream. If the Island tributary a them from the facts, knew those it was fraud in him to conceal which contract Island, a legislature repre- sign -— three miles from reverse, sented the that the station was direct but. was seven miles charter, Charles River when according.to it that the to the charter. The court asked to is contrary presume false. this be' commissioners stated what knew'to be Can pre- fraud true, ? If it would it not amount sumed were designed ?(cid:127) of Rhode legislature that, the, bf these con-. answer, ratification It agreed the. their va- tracts Island is essential to legislature Rhode.- contract es- Did the Rhode Island lidity. legislature ratify from a contrary line three miles stream tablishing tributary to the char- charter, or according Charles River three.miles localities, and facts, ? If a the' ter the secret knowledge commissioners, true of the. was essential to bind the meaning map it ? The obvious was not essential to the legislature equally bind is' three from Charlés River ,of contract miles meaning proper.- obvious and Did the the contract its legislature according ratify it' aby to a legal meaning, according meaning impressed upon ?

knowledge facts which pretended they possessed the court But the whole of this groundwork presumption, from -the make, is asked to that in 1710 Massachusetts claimed ; for after fails and not from tributary River, streams . wholly from a tributa- ofl676, the decision never claim did Massachusetts stream. ry the. main In she to decide which was claimed right fact, she out stream and which mapped tributary, point the brook as River. stream, the -main and called Charles . n showed that as Charles Riv- map she In map of a stream. charter, tci and not as map tributary according er fact, took she- brook depositions prove River was Charles proper,. u 1791,' Massachusetts commissioners branch say,— could not been known as Charles called Charles River now “— in 1710.” The-Rhode Island commissioners That say, River brook as and for Massachusetts commissioners out pointed From 1642 down to the claim Massa Charles River.” main fact, stream, was the brook chusetts rested admit, that main its and the stream tributary, impliedly the other them. Until this the fact was case way, against has trial, begin never contended for -right miles from a fact that the stream, but for the brook tributary main stream. that as authorities of Massa- fact, 1640 the early public the main stream, the name of chusetts bestowed Charles River upon brook, and as its with the far to westward early junction tributary, the name of Jack’s Pasture Brook upon treated all the boundaries of the towns and conveyances that private stream, one main the River and called the proper, and the brook,- that it other is so clearly the the proved decisively fact is. , The also even further is proved, brought dispute. .into to stream, it is obvious thé that the one is main the that the sens.es but a othér tributary. for the counsel to conclusive rendered proof necessary This the time defence, to first during the contend ground shift that always history controversy, this that, such; in from a stream Rhode tributary claimed - to localities, and intended. allow knew all validity Island that is of the contract the re- claim, precisely although language verse. 1749,. commissioners discovered mis Rhode. Island station,, the Woodward unable to find Saffrey Being take. the three to to river and measure off go obliged they-were miles, of 1718 was seven then discovered that line They miles.. from, run the line to which-we three, .They river.. instead-of it, claim, monuments notice upon gave erected permanent now line claimed that claim to this. that day ... — un- this the.right territory contends We therefore ..That 2. That the and certain. is established as clear der the charter Rhode and 1718 were not intended convey contracts Massachusetts,-neither power possessing party territory merely' contracts were 3. That these to convey purchase. was sev- miles, when fact it that was three admissions the station madé admissions upon from the river. That were en, these v. facts,- and are not an false statement law binding obviously inor equity. are some of views of the Rhode Island mind These the leading case, these and we have been en- vital largely upon points fact, unanswerable, that that are notwith- couraged us, of intellect against standing arrayed extraordinary power remain unanswered. wholly entirely coun- it for that what has not been answered by Taking granted court, sel will not we now be overruled proceed inquire to her Island, whether secured jurisdictional' right lost nature,, a record of has been and most highest enduring of time. through agency if time is ex- To minds it seems clear our proposition, case, ert influence over the any rights parties influence must be based never as yet promulgated upon principles has come to law the code or national municipal any courts of our artificial system knowledge. prevailing has been and in this country,' law and England common equity, encroachments and broader inflated, made more largely deeper sense, than the domain of and common any practical justice Yet withir the of our system learning. sys- previous tem, range, extended as it has been ambitious book lawyers book time into contains-no of action form bringing judges, capable Island, one of or claims of hostility rights case. present the first the main time is so reason prolific pre- place, why founded out of is against sumptions party possession Ceaseless and The love money avarice. untiring activity and statutes basis of all grant, prescription, presumptions should limitations. man- It is human against experience,-that any other benefits income, allow another to receive the rents own, and of his it as his for a series claiming property, years, law remain silent under such encroachment. presumes than that such that there has more existed lost grant, probable man in should take It because -the possession anomaly place. the man out of sustains great advantages, enjoys title to be ac- losses, that the concludes the law so great readily if not in cases, reason,- cording many This enjoyment. — often- all, and a duty, would apply awkwardly jurisdiction, which, times an instead of onerous, a sometimes dangerous, duty, an from, we not, like courting, gladly enjoy- —and property, escape in. ment, a thé benefit, indeéd, blessings of greatest worldly of of of a mass mankind. To performance opinion forego a does not with time so presumption duty impregnate, quite quick he, it the absence of of all as to the enjoyment, may rights, forego en- income, another, of claimed thousands of dollars of many a another. another, denial of our right with joyed by 1846. 625 v. Massachusetts. of time Then, again, quiets long possessions property is child, it passes policy. Property parent principle instruments, will, deeds other transferred transmitted by be, as or fifty acknowledges, in the course forty years may if not most of whom took owners, it for distinct many many .the that the was'the undisturbed peaceable possessor legiti- granted, belief, for undoubted The law this encourages mate and owner. Heirs, devisees, would be.made. otherwise no improvements to hazard would be large unwilling expenditures, purchasers title, could deed, in a the entire loss not flaw .or even paper aof and undis- influences long be cured benign salutary less chaster and But' prolific puted possession. jurisdiction devisees, but- here heirs, character. She has or there will discouraged Third making purchaser. persons because the first large improvements by expenditures money, and in there no third are jurisdiction, persons place the next connected itself without ex- enlarges amplifies place, jurisdiction of the law is to and the restrain kind, policy of any penditures It these expensive rather than propensities. must encourage that the influences therefore be admitted benign application would be rather to-such gawky, subject jurisdiction time * n old-maidish, and ungraceful. But we this within the bring subject jurisdiction suppose ; has time or range property any applicable principles action, that can affect dinance, slightest degree form apy ? entire confi We with the most rights Rhode say dence that it has not.1 the courts of law There are but three modes known to equity, — in which time her influences exercises upon permanent property; 3. limitations; '2. By By pre- statutes By prescription; sumptions grants. - limitations can apply It is not that statutes pretended absurd to invoke the com of two states. It would be equally .case administered at law' law mon doctrine of prescription, in-this for to prescription day, country,, equity, England can show that is overthrown if the out possession person 1st of Rich subsequent commenced at time Law 75 First. Library), ard the on Presumptions (47 Best v. Bl. 31 Fisher Price, Comm. Cooke, Taylor Tithe, Greaves, 3 C. & Eagle Younge, derived from rights, enjoy- The' presumption prescriptive is shown ment, to,- end where right instantly put I that is Rich. of legal within the originated memory,” period ' (1189). under- and the charter until settled Massachusetts was not she claims was granted title, she time the two in which first operates modes 3 A vol.iv. 626 v. Island . alone, unaided other by any direct or proof, circumstantial. acts. If the the statute .of period required limitations has or transpired, if the has been as far back as extends, law memory that it was coeval with presumes Richard the in both Firsthand time alone constitutes a title. legal cases But with the of the case of a exception and one or mortgage, two other cases, alone, time analogous circumstances,, unaided by is never sufficient third form for the of its action, way of pre- a' suming grant. Mans-, v. Homer, Mayor Kingston 102, Lord Cowper, ££— field A says, concluded jury statute limitations. inSo the case of if it be time out of prescription, mind, a jury bound. evidence a time when Any not claim did ex showing ist is an answer to 109. prescription:” p. ££ time, But evidence, length be left to a to be may jury or not, credited to circumstances.” according ££ n There is no rule which that one positive says hundred fifty of time within

years, is a length other memory, sufficient . charter.” ground presume The more modern authorities’ are all collected in Best, and the well settled doctrine and in this England is, now that the country of a is a case of presumption grant evidence, circumstantial which time constitutes but a link. single A must believe that a jury grant Cowen, 6 actually made. 109, 269 ; ; 706 3 Johns. R. 1 Wash: C. C. 70 2 Wend. Rep. — 431.; 3 Connect. R. 11 East, 279 Barn. & Aid. " 3 ibid. 228 : 150. —££ court, Williams, This Wheat.-59, Pre say, Ricardo can never arise where all the sumptions grant circumstances are with- consistent of a «5 fortiori, can grant, non-existence when the arise claim is of such a nature as is at variance with . existence a grant-” show, facts this case no conclusively presumption of a than the charters and the grant contracts of the (Other parties, the construction of which the case can for a moment depends) — ; because, be indulged 1. From 1628 down there was power competent make- a mother grant Massachusetts and country. except colonies, that, and it is not were denied up were incompetent convey temtory jurisdiction. 2. No crown can other from the tbe grant presumed (than of 1628, charters limits of be enlarging 1691), grants enrolled, cause are the well settled law of cannot be enrolment without England proof presumed spolia Abbott, tion or hiatus record. 3 Barn. Ald. 150, & —££ J., found, C. instance where No can says, .court v. Massachusetts. an enrolment has been See, also, said presumed,” Best on Presumptions, But mtist been enlarged have grant only, recorded in but' in in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, and England, no such would have been made without the mort formal notice grant to both to be affected. No confirmatiuti.of the parties' contracts of 1710 and 1718 can be for the same reasons. presumed, Such con- firmation must have been notice, ánd would have upon appeared the records of the upon mother and both the colonies inter- country ested. III. additional Any or from grant country, Rhode mother Island, after is not 1775, with the inconsistent only circumstances case, but at war with whole from 1710 its history pres- the. time,. ent Because grant 1775, or confirmation any prior any the contracts of 1710 would have been 1718, enrolled mother the records- of both country, upon Massachusetts and Island, Rhode Rhode Island since grant or confir- 1775, any mation Of the contracts of 1710 must have been recorded in 1718, Massachusetts and Island. human hands must Some have touched confirmations, these or human grants some must eyes seen them, have and wheniost from all three of their beds of repose, hiatus, or stick, lost must have appeared upon record-books.. fact ? The mistake in How the the admissions of the Rhode Island commissioners omit to call it was not (we dis- an.imposition) covered until 1825, 1748. From that down to scarcely time has year elapsed during 'commissioners from both States have not been or continued under former appointed, appointment's, .the purpose settlipg long-pending dispute. Frequent have been had. All meetings their'conversations, arguments, and claims have been of those writing, conversations reports made to the of- the two legislatures' States. From the respective last, first to the has been made of- hiatus in the pretence any records in either the two Not a England, States. syllable has been other title than the charters lisped -any 1691.- last, From has first the claim of been, Massachusetts is, and now charter, hers that contracts territory that was .1710 conceded the as the'chartered right territory Massachusetts. admitted, It is madé ay- it is the sole foundation of the opposite that, 1642, as as gument, Massachusetts this ter- long ago surveyed line, took to the Woodward and ritory, up Saffrey charter, virtue of the she that has and claimed it from occupied that time down to the of the charter. All this is virtue present Besides, irreconcilable with title. during any.oth.er period down various neither and frequent party, discussions, between that other existed pretended question them than what Both construction the charter. was proper y. that Massa- instrument. title that the. whole admitted rested was the main that Pasture Brook stream Jack’s chusetts contended become a had since tributary, and; though that As always tributary. contended (cid:127)Rhode Island it. commissioners, in their report, Massachusetts late'as that that should be re- to their question legislature- recommended run line three to arbitrators. ferred it, River, erected permanent miles from Charles boundaries with, n gave line, notice that of that she map .a her de- then,'Massachusetts Here, put upon to it. claimed ;of ours, south line, four miles Her fence as early was claimed us Ours line. her as the true charter claimed by our to this monuments have day charter line. From true commissioners line, to this our and from day stood upon 1.750, Massa- continual claim. It has been a to it. claimed witnesses, order preserve chusetts depositions took her evidence in of her construction of evidence AH charter. n favorof'that construction, knew, then, that in the case. 'Sha concede our right by negotiation, she must either some day other All- the moral reasons, or it under legal compulsion. surrender no here. have of therefore, application favor long possession of all her The lost of her evidence. depositions She has none (cid:127) (cid:127) None of the case. legal witnesses taken in 1750 are now the. charter, there- under her reasons took possession She apply. has been of The whole subject fore can other title. no set up 1825, and therefore constant from 1750 to presumption dispute can arise. of a from grant Rhode Indeed, question. to Reason vain attempt that any and moral instincts It contradicts all our legal suppose even exist, would sanction ever did or ever can which or principle mo- the idea that such countenance the possession, disputéd influ- have bill, any the time of- the can ment was taken to filing made The law ence the title of either yet party. to such and glaring injustice. which gross, countenance gives of the court. the delivered Mr. McLEAN opinion Justice - due of the of under a sense the dignity this case We approach which it involves. the principles importance-of parties, á settled at former of’the court having jurisdiction1 boundary the determine term, we to ascertain only now which fol the This,- consequences disconnected dispute.' little, in principle low, any, is a question,, differing simple neither cession It involves á line between disputed individuals. settling nor exercise jurisdiction. territory, political the than ascer more we do nothing the rights respective' parties^ on that line either tain the true and the territory up boundary, side, falls within the necessarily proper jurisdiction. v. Massachusetts. 4620, November, the on the 3d of First, granted James on the lying Council established Plymouth territory Atlantic extending of north degrees latitude, between forty forty-eight March, westward the sea. And on the 19th of Council others Roswell and the territory Plymouth granted Henry First, which was confirmed Charles , March, 4th of 1629. This was limited'to territory grant “ on within the miles the south three lying English part space thereof; and also all or River, Charles or of any part every whatsoever, and be- and hereditaments singular lying lands within the southward three miles ing English the. space southernmost all those lands of Massachusetts and.also part Bay whatsoever, and hereditaments and be within the which lie space River,, Merrimack or to the northward English .miles of. thereof,” to the northward of west- extending every part ward the same seá. breadth On the 13th of Plymouth grant* Council January, colony was sanc on the same Plymouth, day ed..to tioned of New First, all that' England, aforesaid, America that lie within be and tract or tracts of land tween a runlet called Coahasset there commonly certain.rivulet towards north, called and the river Narraganset commonly the south,” towards &c. River The Council of charter to the surrendered its king the. Plymouth Charles, June, 7th of fhe On 23d of April, (cid:127) Second, Connecticut, granted territory colony River, bounded on. called the east commonly by Narraganset into, the sea the said falleth where river Bay, Narraganset north the line of the Massachusetts plantation,” &c. The charter of the 8th of Island was July, granted Charles the limited on north Second, southerly line boundary It thus the common that the line is appears disputed Island; between latter south lying , line, true location of former north it. settles this line controversy. than two since the More hundred emanation years’have elapsed .charter, of the Massachusetts for this and more boundary calling one hundred arid the date of than the Rhode years,'since eighty must, remote, In Island charter. transactions so we as looking far as as and understood at things view were seen practicable, they the of time There is test truth and jus- no other they transpired. tice, which to the variable of human concerns. condition applies “ of charter, words within lying Massachusetts River, of three miles on Charles space the south English part or of defi- thereof,” do sc not clear every convey part to Whether nite an idea as be one construction. but susceptible a3* ' ®. of-the shall be from the body measurement the three miles into it, fall are or from which river, the head-waters óf streams in the same not answer way. which different minds may questions sense, constitute river, in ne That streams tributary is come within it, meaning clear but whether part early the charter the matter in exposition controversy. is not to be under it disre- this instrument those who claimed by conclusive. not be garded, though may often a matter controversy line said This' -as Massachusetts, early colony between the Plymouth an obser- thát Nathaniel took and" that in year Woodward River, latitude. 41° 50' north vation of Charles upon part of Massachusetts were ascertained by the southern bounds á who fixed station- the said Woodward and Solomon Saffrey, And River.. three miles south of the southernmost Charles part .each a line run commissioners from colony, by Massachusetts, return was -Court accepted by General recorded and may and ordered fairly presumed, awas construc- This the return .also Plymouth. accepted by Plymouth, charter and assented tion main chan- miles were be measured-not from'the three of its tribu- River, from the of one nel of Charles head-waters Connecti- land were made 'táries. Grants of by Massachusetts established, also wére on their common .and towns boundary, cut line, which much contention. without a regard produced strict in 1702 commissioners were appointed To these adjust disputes, set They to ascertain up two boundary-line.. provinces from, at, or not far and took their observation their quadrant miles south of the southernmost of three distance at Biss ell’s took second observation River, after which they ; and.it in the .line of Woodward and house, Saffrey called for established had made grants was found Massachusetts conri bf line. This line was established finally towns south in- Connecticut, Massachusetts missioners appointed at Woodward the correctness admit beginning on of Charles station, miles the south English Saffrey’s charter.” River, and agreeably every part-thereof, inhabitants occurred-between border difficulties Serious Island, conflicting grants, and Rhode account towns. after much correspondence the "establishment of And action on the parties,-it and legislative subject by respective commissioners to settle line. agreed was finally appoint enacted, October, the General Assembly to treat Jenks commissionated that whereas being Major Joseph between the bounds with- Governor concerning Dudley settling that, in case of Massachusetts and this government; province so issue agree Governor himself should Dudley Rhode Island ®. Massachusetts. matter, then Jenks and Major hereby authorized^to- empowered offer and conclude such other terms as he most may judge for the interest &c. colony,” proper commissioners both colonies met at Roxbury, January 19th, 1710— and after stating under which áuthority they i acted, letters, and examined the several having charters and line betwixt said relating .the

patent governments, respective and desirous to remove' and take being occasions of dis away £i and &c., that the stake pute controversy,” agree set-up Nathaniel Woodward and skilful, Solomon''Saffrey, approved- artists, our in the Lord one thousand six hundred year and forty- - two, often renewed, and since latitude of forty-one .the miles, minutes, and three degrees fifty-five being English distant southward from-the called southernmost river River, to the letters for the agreeable patent prov ince, and be accounted allowed on both sides the commencement of the line between- the Massachusetts and the of Rhode colony Island.” Other matters were to the line of adjusted according referred, Woodward' which need not be to. Saffrey, This and. agreement Jenks, and and signed by Dudley commis sioners from and two from Rhode Island. March, 1711, the Islarid sanctioned this legislature agree ment, the line to run in thereof, be by authorizing pursuance Massachusetts. agreement accepted approved in -17-17, and also commissioner’swere appointed by to run the line under the 'Rhode Island at agreement Roxbury, jointly with or commissioners from Massachusetts if the latter refuse ne to act, then to run the line without them. glect June, On 17th of 1718, the after the commis legislature, stating been retarded in sioners settling agreement made line —££ This, &c,, at Roxbury, assembly, -taking premises under consideration, enact, do constitute, and ‘hereby- appoint Major Jenks, others, committee treat Joseph agree as are or commissionated, gentlemen maybe appointed .such with full General the Province Mas power, by Assembly aforesaid, sachusetts for the final the afore Bay settling stating line colonies, between the said unto hereby said giving granting others, the aforesaid Jenks and or the Major Joseph major part them, our ánd and settle the aforesaid power authority agree full can, line between the said as near colonies, best manner they- our as in honor agreeable charter can royal compromise same,” &c. 22d Rehoboth, of both commissioners colonies met October, agreed, hands seals under again ££that the stake set Nathaniel Woodward1 and Solomon up by the station Saffrey, plain, year upon'Wrentham line,” re commencement to &c. This being begin agreement 6& 1718, was General October, 29th accepted turned on the recorded and ordered Island, of Rhode Assembly And a commission, joint also 'Massachusetts. was accepted by established, line as to run both .the governments by being appointed “— We, subscribers, 1719, and' June, say, 5th met on the the govern and by of the committee empowered being appointed line &c., the east and west be for settling ments of the province, agreement virtue the said by governments, tween Rehoboth, at on the at the meeting of the said committee major part line was fully at .the said set last which time of October past, 22d us. run. them to be directed by Having and by and tled .agreed, and of Ñathaniel Woodward Solomon on met at the stake Saffrey, ,12th 1719, in the morn anno Domini May, plain, Wrentham line,” &c., said which the course of agreed ing, computed of Allom erected run them two miles west was by pond, line This return was by at approved monuments different points. Island Asserhbly. Island of Rhode October, legislature appointed line River, to'the continue Connecticut other commissioners as Woodward and set Saffrey the stake up by place recognizing met, thus in The appomted having commissioners beginning. Wrentham, at and Massachusetts failed 1749, twice, having ap- them, with commissioners act commission- point line. In their running report ers complete proceeded “ — find stake or other ablé.to we,', any That not being say, we set by monument which Woodward Saf- up imagine could was described the agree- that the thereof jfrey, considering place marks, in our invariable we

ment mentioned certain by commissien : a folioweth, did we found where proceed namely place is known to River which formed large southerly, place current. Poppotalish be we took to the name of which many pond, river; southernmost'part from the southernmost said ; which three English we miles south which measured English Wrentham,” called miles-did township terminate upon plain &c. relied .to. These are the es- leading respondent facts as the tablish the Woodward place station Saffrey .from run, tact run. which was was agreed boundary-line we are now how arid the And to consider facts arguments these from them deduced are met by complainant. Massachusetts, insisted, In the first it is the line run place without authority. was There, does, from the crown to have been order appear have, line, or' to run is it usual nor necessary supposed crown to an order, for the where no respéct- controversy give' line was before it. ing boundary, general, brought .the in named was run established charter, colony TERM,, v. Massachusetts. interested"; and where was no further colonies tbere no. dispute controversy in to their com- action required. regard Massachusetts, between mon Plymouth boundary, seems as 1638, was to have existed as early finally adjusted running line was commenced called the the line This place tree, which is said to be about two miles south the Wood- angle ward and Saffreyrstation. station first established, When Woodward Saffrey nor Rhode neither Connecticut Island had political existence.. which m And 1691 was colony, into Plymouth incorporated then a distinct existence and a' having political Massachusetts,.assented.to common boundary farther line time, the., At this line was run, south than above station.. scarcely nor Island can neither Connecticut to have said Rhode. as the charter of the former was dated organization, political and that of the one Massa- two year. latter years only before* chusetts, .théri, in the "abovestation-of Woodward estabiishing not, fine, does seem to have acted running Saffrey, pre- in -of other without disregard authority, rights cipitately, colonies. charter, of more than The misconstruction the three going River, of On south Charles by miles is'earnestly complain- insisted If words of the charter arid ant^ counsel. the were-clear unequivo- would, there in this It cal this be.great argument. force respect, of this unless controlled other would be by controversy, decisive maintain and But who can that a facts circumstances casé. “ River, ofor and to be run -miles south any three line of -milessouth of thereof,” limited to three the is clearly every part the river with riiore channel of the the of river. Can main body its it, of called a of than language tributary accuracy, part whole, than the when we We call that a which is less streams. part not a tree, of do call limb made We of ¿ny thing up parts. speak, to be made is of a dnd n a measurement is tree but it. part branches be tree, would its disregarded. the any When every part whole, of it as a whether we river, we we speak speak it, north.or a certain as bearing refer to below point; above not a river, in common the south, part the language, of the river in the channel gives The the water river. flowing its are charactér, changed by length. and these its name neither the but one Mississippi, We and Lower Upper speak Had Massa- is called of the Mississippi. nor the other a part three miles south line to limit the chusetts designed charter “ south three miles been, would not the-river, the language river.” most bend in the southerly the charter construed may would seem that It therefore of the com- That the construction favorable- the respondent. the conclusion natural? is not a is admitted forced one plainant VOL. IV. v. Massachusetts.. differ follows, as to that men of intelligence-may opinion equal ly true That Massachusetts more instrument. meaning two hundred the charter as her. counsel than construed years ago the con- clear, now construe it is and the facts authorize proved clusion, not, many that this was years, construction opposed by Island, no time and at But by Connecticut or Rhode Plymouth. is drawn northern attention court boundary “ the charter describes as Massachusetts, which English River, or miles to of the Merrimack north- the northward ” ; thereof ward of received the con- and every contends struction for which by king complainant council. Massachusetts, The claimed in- northern boundary-line, ; and it that Mason and cluded Maine and New Hampshire appears under some which were who claimed grants, prior Gorges, the en- to that king date petitioned against, covered on of Massachusetts territory grants. croachments made, and in was question answer of Massachusetts The title to C ouncil. the land was claimed Privy brought before disclaimed Massachusetts and the was king petitioners as to held, government, council province Maine than three miles from the English lies more River northerly Massachusetts Merrimack, gave patent right govern ..the there.” was charter Massachusetts vacated scire 1684, the Bench, new charter facias, King’s judgment the south- Maine granted including Plymouth, ern was riot as regards present controversy, changed. bbundary, before the king northern boundary again brought “was, that the bound- council when the decision northern line, ary of be a similar curve pur- province at three.miles thereof Merrimack River distance suing course of Ocean, at on the the Atlantic a" side, ending north beginning ; and a due Falls line drawn from of Pawtucket straight point north decision, thence call of west,” due &c. the charter a the tribunal was that’ deemed disregarded, ground equitable. the decision was not this it by .governed clearly appears, From ; an of the legal king’s but was exercise prerogative principles, determined, same by although was former case power taken, a opinion-of.the so that neither decision constitutes was judges rule'in the first case, other cases for action of a court of law. there was which crown had a conflict power jurisdiction, settle, the decision although expediency, principles charter., on a other to be founded construction purports yet however, if The decision, considerations it. may influenced cases, in entitled other regardéd as. respectful authority . consideration. v.

Rhode of the the effect in 1711 and. To avoid agreements by of both in to the- line in dis- governments, commissioners regard commissioners, that its alleges, the'complainant relying pute, commissioners, of the. and the representations charter, words did believe that station of Woodward was within three miles River and that the Saffrey situation true of that station was not known the authorities and of Rhode Island until about the 175Ó. people year The fact aof want of this after more knowledge, lapse than a It difficult to establish. cer- century quarter, cannot be tainly assumed which transactions against strongly imply, do not If the Rhode Island they com- prove, knowledge. missioners were misled in the fifst agreement, locality this- station, it belief, almost that, afterwards, seven surpasses yéars- of the Island, line been subject having discussed such dissatisfaction shown lead to a as to new being by péople commission, the second should be misled. commission again be a It matter of doubt, of recent occur- may whether mistake rence, so committed high so duty, agency responsible could be corrected a court of on the clear- chancery. Except est proof mistake, it is certain there no relief. No could be has held treaty void, on the ground misapprehension facts, either or both of the parties. It from the appears, others, of John that he and report Cushing, a committee being to unite Of Island, committee did with a meet at Wrentham, November, 1709, agreeably appointment, shown being Leverett, the line run John by Major-General 1671, the Rhode unite with the committee was .requested Massachusetts committee in that line. But declined renewing they so, doing alleging- line, knew the but could not recognize it as true one.' It appears,, case, the station depositions frameseveral of Woodward and was well known in the Saffrey neighbourhood, by tradition and otherwise, Wrentham, oldest in the settlers and, year that; from Callicott’s deposition thirty before, he years when estab- present Saffrey Woodward and lished station, measuring three miles south from out pond principal river came.” From year 1750, Island, were taken repeated steps in various resolutions, commissioners, at differ- by appointing ent times, ascertain'ánd run the line in connection with commis- sioners to be appointed Commissioners by Massachusetts. both colonies met more than once but make no arrange- could ment line, changing as established in 1711 under the agreements and 1718. Rhode Island mistake in- her commissioners alleged place as the That these efforts. beginning, ground colonies had a not de- mark out their right boundaries v. Island Massachusetts.

Rhode had no without the con- insisted, that it was they power, but nied their called for in charters. crown, to the limits change sent as the' alleges, by werfc Massachusetts controversies' kept up, These this others, effect. However inhabitants, and for party may border to with the government. not have subsided be, change seem to take made Rhode Island an was time, by one arrangement, At council, was but the king appeal before not the subject 1-746, decision against Rhode obtained effected. bound-, council, before the Massachusetts, regard.to king claimed was by This the Narraganset Bay. boundary ary on annexed to old was Massachusetts, after Plymouth the. colony been ex- seems to have time, dissatisfaction it. to this no Up Island, line Saffrey to Woodward pressed acts in detail to state its subsequently, deemed unnecessary it- is result. as led to no They its objections, practical showing conduce to so far as may théy can be of importance,, except ip time. the lapse acquiescence rebut presumption the time to resolutions, 18,25, to Island adopted timé, From up be which should those appointed commissioners meet appointed line, this for the adjustment disputed Massachusetts adhered agreements.' Massachusetts contro- of this This is protracted important general outline ne- státed, where did not seem be facts are not versy. case has been on the effect state them but cessary view, to come remains, aby general It now. only disregarded. thé well es- and- is authorized required that conclusion of law. tablished principles — two. : counsel grounds rely mainly upon The complainant’s of the charter. misconstruction of the Woodward and as to the true location The mistake statiom Saffrey the second must ruled complainant, the first be against If little first need ground, And as regards a consequence. fall - said. The is of doubt has been charter to what already added be violence to its without doing language, may, ful construction favor or against position complainant. construed charter as- view, the construction this before' Con- Plymouth,' many the old years colony sented ' Island had organization, impor- political necticut interested was in restricting case. tant fact Plymouth -. charter, for the line the common the calls of constituted line n two colonies. And controversies between the boundary- and commissioners appointed arisen respecting boundary, both colonies were it, is that rights settle presumption of the line. And the establishment respected understood miles south Woodward two established was thus line afterwards to-as agreed station. When this-station Saffrey’s

Rhode' run, which the boundary the place her considered the as to rights. change to prejudicial seems of the had construed charter to commissioners Plymouth If the of miles south most bend Charles southerly extend only could not have assented to the as run. River, they boundary to of the is not be the absence drawn presumption thatjthey proof, the hne was three miles south of established the only supposed Connecticut, to the assented river. after the lapse many years, as its from the Woodward station bounda,ry, line run Saffrey as and so did the most solemn stat- complainant, agreements, conduce establish a fixed con- to ed. These proceedings strongly charter, the favorable unless to the struction respondent, to that founded on mistake or made were clearly appear fraud. the into is not we have charged, inquire Fraud only alleg- mistake. ed mistake, it is nature of this the scarcely suscept- From supposed of the charter used The words of' by ible proof. station, as three miles south Woodward and in describing Saffrey’s River, and in statements southernmost Island, late sur- certain reports legislature Simeon‘Borden, constitute the facts on the com- relied by vey mistake. as proving plainant in the latitude or be detected longi- Whatever inaccuracy may as Saffrey, them, station of Woodward and given, by tude of the for, called thé the streams be- place in volume water of or often made are will other control calls. Streams identified ing of the country, direction the improvements their by change is increased diminished same by water their volume cause. made the commissioners If Massachu- by the representations station, of Woodward and location Saffrey’s setts as charter, within there was no construction, came mis- plausible To the allegar, take fact on relief can be sustain which given. tion made riot sta- mistake, must be appear only charter, not within the commissioners but that tion. in be»’ Island, agreements, who signed river, and that miles of the no it to be within three lieved of it, location fact, as to the true should knowledge have led them make the subject. inquiry pf in 1711, station From Woodward Saffrey’s the notoriety of Rhode met Massa- and from thé fact that commissioners line, Wrentham, at No- commissioners this chusetts respecting -vember, with Lever- be well 1709, and acquainted professed line, it is Cushing, as from the difficult report ett’s appears Wrentham least, were believe they, acquainted and with the there established. station plain, B VOL. IV. v. Massachusetts. two is states. sovereign between independent This dispute when history, their infancy question It originated of little And were contest was fortunately early importance. steps it, in and one most to settle a mode honorable like- taken just, There is to lead to a result. satisfactory objection ly their, case, in this. to. authority, commission capacity, joint innocent mistake is of their An the fáirness proceeding. shown, decision. And as has alleged against in the construction of either not clearly established, mistake station. charter, Saffrey to the location the Woodward or as if the were admitted as fully charged mistake broadly But bill, asked complainant. could court the relief give 1754, William then afterwards Murray, attorney-general, Mansfield, Connecticut, whether agree consulted Lord their common with Massachusetts boundary, ment respecting aside, set the crown. a commission would appointed that, am of which- Mr. I settling Murray replied, opinion,

.To —44 crown will not disturb settle boundary, above-mentioned I. so his apprehend ment .the two'provinces long ago by itself is riot which of will confirm'their agreement, binding Majesty crown, but should be litigate the neither suffered provifice If mat amicable of doubtful boundaries. corfipromise case ter was made in the same construction .open, already words in -same Merrimack' Rive» must be same put upon it is Brook, im charter to Charles As Jack’s River. applied River, a view, whether’t say possible without how it been re at least without an exact and has knowing plan, puted.” time From the settlement this was referred up opinion to. And Mr. Murray, elapsed. given by forty-one years only time sufficient to that'agreement, was protect how'much does to the under con- force greater agreements principle apply a sideration, which are of more than cen- lapse by protected centuries have and More than two tury quarter. passed since (cid:127) claimed and took of the territory -possession up and established Woodward This the line Saffrey. possession been, maintained, under an has ever assertion of steadily since thus It would be difficult disturb claim sanctioned right. time, in its however- have been unfounded might origin. was not taken under respondent only in most has been claim solemn form ad right, right the other colonies interested" mitted complairiant it. before a mistake Forty years elapsed- alleged,’ opposing since such has century allegation nearly made transpired. in the from the strict If there was a con agreements departure charter,.the struction Rhode Island commissioners acted within their authorized agree for were settle powers, they ». Massachusetts.

Rhod.e can, the said colonies best manner between the line as in honor charter can compromise near agreeable royal can this insist on the same.” Under authority, complainañt the words of charter because were setting-aside agreements-, ? It that the calls of -the not observed is not clear charter strictly the station of Woodward were deviated by establishing deviation, if in this there was a But Saffrey. respect . were Island was its commissioners author bound; not the less connected this, ized' to with the Surely dispute. compromise all as to time, respondent must remove doubt right lapse under the of 1711 -1718. No human transactions agreements are time. Its is seen on things unaffected influence subject to" this is the case in matters And change. regard peculiarly rest with the which and which fade lapse memory, consequently time, and fall with the lives of individuals. For security individuals, under a whether of states or rights, long possession is no claim of title And 'there controversy is protected. this be involved with great greater propri may justice principle than in a case of boundary. ety disputed matter, has acted in Island, State of pursuing faith those ele- and under conviction good right.. Possessing .ments, an eminent which constitute moral and intellectual degree, its case for a final has submitted power, ably perseveringly decision. The bill must be.dismissed.

Mr. Chief TANEY. Justice a motion to'dis- This came before court in case upon was then miss the for want of and that bill question jurisdiction bar, considered by very elaborately argued carefully I consideration, full came to court. argument, Upon over the conclusion that coert had subject- jurisdiction effect, with a to that very matter controversy,. my opinion founded, is brief which it was statement principles intimated, that I at the Peters, have in wherein reported the grounds final of the case I examine more fully should hearing from which the I which in upon was asserted opinion jurisdiction dissented. decision, be- the under As in this case was court legally the in came time to take interlocutory time to duty my conduct the cáse which were to proceedings attd necessary prepare it has to reached But, .after unavoidable delays, hearing. many final is Rhode Island and we are whether point; now to determine in this to for. Entertaining upon court entitled she asks relief has been this which heretofore subject opinion expressed, this not; confirmed and-that reflection, she is I think subsequent in court have dispute no to decide constitutional question power Hardeman et'al. Anderson. v. States,, that the bill ought between the dis- consequently missed. ... J as I concur, therefore, I decree do pronounced, just fy more decree, state dissent from unnecessary not is. fully the. heretofore, I have done- to the doctrines than tny objection maintained. jurisdiction concerned, far I case, so am point, Deciding upon this J. merits of. the controversy course no express opinion upon at the elaborate even deemed it tobe present not necessary have which, made pres- have been evidence

arguments upon For ent term. if Rhode Island had justly herself proved over and dominion entitled exercise clearly sovereignty it, and the inhabit territory my who question, people yet judgment dismissed, haVeheen, that the ground must still the.bill should be court,-under States, this Constitution of United States, redress the" between such power question try done. to have been even wrong, wrong proved , error, Plaintiffs William Hardeman D. Hardeman Anderson, Defendant. Edward court, rule forty-third under the and dismissed After case has been docketed error, will, when- the court another writ of sues out this plaintiff error and case second-writ it, require supersedeas stay proceedings-pending order a appears error. of Sep- 24th supersedeas section the act of under the fourteenth issued tember, 1783. United of error from the This was a writ Court the. pircuit District of Mississippi. for the Southern States Feb- on the 28th of court, At the tenii namely, preceding error, the defendant Howard,, behalf of 1845., Mr. ruary, a writ file certificate that of error had moved for leave to out, and for an and dismiss under sued docket case order rule of court. forty-third term, This close of order was accordingly passed, the. at. case error, record been filed having plaintiffs dismissed.' Crittenden, counsel for term, At Mr. plaintiffs present —*: error, affidavit, filed the namely following u Mississippi. District Southern America, United States me, before This William Hardeman appeared day personally &c., and cases, commissioner, in civil &c., for affidavits taking months summer, bath, many time the last made some during notes B. ch. on pp. Jeremy Eq. Jurisp., pt. If not of his that he knew time is no bar. right, legatee allege - Fonbl., when as above. Nor fraud proved. An Bank, v. 9 Mass. R. 408. indorser Garland Salem paid made the maker demand had or no-' note,.ignorant ' it. himself, tice he was advised Held to be á though pay mistake, 4 and he recovered Mass. again. R. payment, by .back Mass; ;. ; East, ; & ; R. 74 5 1 712 Burr. 2672 Durn. & Pull. 326 Doug. R. Bos States, case of v. The Bank United The The Union Bank “— note Mass. R. is a case. The If marginal strong is, A., of B., the mistaken affirmation in confiding, though improperly, him A. it shall recover back.” pay money, bad checks, two was, case had received branch bank Union Bank. from the had received they supposed they sent stating them to the They messenger, Union Bank by Bank came from paid the Union Bank they them. whereupon Union the Union Bank Between the time of them by paying them, failed and drew mistake, Rawson, the discove who y COURT, v. branch so that the bank lost the amount. Par- absconded Judge Court decided that the loss must on sons and fall Supreme hank, who committed the first error. branch Pull, cases and Bos. & are both cases Douglass pay- ' and as the two cases in Mass. mistake, strong ments Reports. Articles Jle~ Marriage Settlements being Cases reformed count Mistake. Randall, 2 Peere Wms. Randall seal, confessed, hand and that both the under husband ease, the fee, to his when limited the estate heirs and settlement articles pf mother his wife to limit heirs' the intention reformed. The articles settlement were wife in fee. the. to be settled decreed estates King Lord Chancellor the wife fee. heirs of Where the Peere Wms. West v. Erissey, 1726.. varied materially made, before marriage, settlement articles, tc of the* articles and to be made stated pursuance from, the.' the settlement will depart be'presumed performance,” mistake. articles

Notes

Notes Part 364; v. McKean, 4 Brunswick Greenl. p. 508. Cowen & Hill’s notes, See on generally, subject presump- tions. “ No of one under a claiming defective title can 1846. v. Massachusetts. title.” Mathews, 198, ; of a note good raise a presumption ; ;10 336. 1 ibid. 6 ibid. Johns. 230 Harris & “ evidence, existence of particular Presumptions all, mixed are, cases, if not of law facts, questions many fact- If the evidence he fact irrelevant insisted upon, it, cannot the court jury presuming warrant would fairly err are in. them it.” liberty instructing presume Corcoran, v. Peters, Bank of States United sometimes, has courts Ignorance equity, been held afford an answer averred demands. releases “ The desertion of a if has been observed, right, al- judicially . it. knowledge ways previous supposes “ It is absurd that a man has of which say, relinquished right Jo he is not aware.” Ch..Cases, Mathews Pres. 18 Sel. 11 2Peere Wms. 2 Mer. Grant, Wm. Sir per Cases Evidence. upan Presumptive al., Beedle Beard et Ja. 1 Coke, 4th (1627),

Case Details

Case Name: Rhode Island v. Massachusetts

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Mar 18, 1846

Citation: 45 U.S. 591

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS