Williams v. Oldroyd

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that if using a monument as the boundary \drastically\ changes what the parties intended, then the legal presumption does not govern
• concluding that the opposing party did not acquiesce in a boundary because he \used the disputed property on several occasions\ and the claiming party \twice offered to purchase it\
• stating that offers to purchase disputed property show parties had not acquiesced in boundary
• concluding as a matter of law that when a metes and bounds description conflicts with a call to a monument, the monument call takes precedence over a call of course or distance
• distinguishing between \[alp-plying rules of construction\ and using extrinsic evidence for \reformation of a deed\
• “Applying rules of construction, however, does not constitute reformation of a deed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).