http://www.lexisnexis.com.libdb.l!iit.edu:8888/us/lnacademicldelivery/Pr..

I of I DOClIME1\rr
LEWIS T. CURTIS v. CALEB C. AARONSON ET AL.
rNO NUMBER IN ORIGINALI
NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT
49 N.J.L. 68; 7 A. 886; 1886 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 26
February 1, 1886, Argued
November 15,1886, Decided
DISPosmON: !***lJ Reversed, and a new trial ordered.
CASE SUMMARY:
c1.aimants sought review of a from Burlington Circuit Court (New Jersey),
which entered Judgt,lcnt, upon a Jury s verdIct, 10 favor of defendant land claImants m a pnvate land boundary dispute.
OVERvmw: Plaintiffs and defendants were adjoining land owners. When a boundary dispute arose, plaintiffs filed suit against
defendants to detenrJne the correct boundary line. The trial court submitted the issue to but in submitting it, it instructed the
jury to the effect that defendants' contentions as to the boundary line were correct. Upon the jury's verdict, the trial court entered
judgment in favor of defendants. Upon review, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for a new trial. The court
held that while the trial coU!i properly submitted the issue ofthe jury's determination, the ad:litional instruction constituted reversible
error. The court found t1)at it could not have been said that plaintiffs did not suffer injury fi'oh1 the trial court's instruction. The court
determined that the instruction was calculated to lead the jury to the conclusion that defendants' contentions were correct. The court
held that the trial court properly excluded testimony offered by persons that had never owned the land in question, because such
testimony constituted hearsay.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for a ne'# trial.
CORE TERMS: monument, chain, declaration, distances, comer, admissible, lTue location, deed, reputation, hearsay, tract, ancient,
deputy, subject matter, southerly, surveyor, stone, map, conversation, qualif)/llg, marked, quasi, private lines, question offact,
traditionary, ascertain, declarant, bounded, general rule, competent evidence:
LexisNexis(R)
Real Property La.w > Deeds> Construction & Interpretation
Real Property Law> Deeds> Property Descriptions
[HNI JThe construction of deeds and other writings in evidence ,n a cause rests with a court as a as well as a right. And in
construing a grant oflands, ifthere is nothing in a description tu control the call for courses and dIstances, the land must be bounded
by the courses anct'qistances called' for. If a grant by sufficiell1 clearly the loca?on premises. conveyed, it
is for the court to. see the grant is applied to the subject matter m accordance WIth the expressed mtentlOn ofthe partIes,
Civil Procedure>. Trials> .Jury Trials> Province ofCOlll't & Jury
Real Property >.])eeds > Property Descriptions. " . f' .',
[HN2] When al'e called for in a deed descnpt)()n mconSlStent WIth calls for 1S a :ule
that courses or distances, or both, must yield to the monuments. But where there 1S a latent amblgUlty m the descnptlOn contamed m
the deed evidence alitindeis admissible. It is admissil,k in all cases where there is a doubt as to the true location of a survey, or a
I.
as to the application ofthe grant to its proper sLbject matter. It is not a of but of A question of
CoilStruction is a pure question oflaw, to be decided by a court upon the terms of the mstrument Itself, to the exclUSIon of eVIdence
9123/2008 12:48 ANI
.r