
    Benjamin Millett vs. George W. Fowle & another.
    A deed, describing the northerly boundary of the premises conveyed, as “ four feet north from the northerly side of the building now standing on said premises,” includes the land on the northerly side of the building to the distance of four feet from the edge of the eaves. •
    This was an action on the case against the defendants for erecting a building on their land in such a manner that the roof and eaves thereof did wash and overhang the house of the plaintiff; and for thereby obstructing the light and air from passing to the windows of the plaintiff’s house, as he had a right to have them pass. Both lots of land were situated on the easterly side of Main street in Woburn.
    The question whether the eaves of the defendants’ building overhung the plaintiff’s house depended on the question what was the boundary line between the estates of the plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff derived his title under a deed -whereby Sylvanus Wood, on the 13th of August, 1835, conveyed " a certain parcel of land, situated near the centre of said Woburn, with the building thereon, bounded as follows, to wit: Beginning at a stake and stones at the south-westerly corner of the premises by Main street, thence running nearly northerly by and with said street to a bound four feet north from the northerly side of the building now standing on said premises, then turning and running nearly easterly a straight line parallel with the back or north side of said building, and four feet distant from the same, and on the same course to a bound at the wall by land of James F. Baldwin,” &c. The defendants derived their title under a deed from Sylvanus Wood, dated the 27th of January, 1838, the premises conveyed by which were described therein, as on the southerly side, adjoining the land of the plaintiff, and running four feet from the north side of the building standing on the plaintiff’s land. The eaves of the building on the plaintiff’s land, as it stood at the time of these conveyances, projected about fifteen inches over the body of the building. The plaintiff contended that the distance of four feet was to be measured from the tip of the eaves; but the defendants insisted that it was to be measured from the body of the building.
    This case was argued and decided at the last October term.
    
      E. Buttrick, for the defendants.
    
      J. P. Converse, for the plaintiff.
   By the Court.

We are of opinion that the expression, in the deed under which the plaintiff claims, “ four feet from the northerly side of the building,” means four feet from the extremest part of the building, and therefore from the eaves.  