
    Josiah Crosby versus John Parker.
    Land is described in a conveyance to A as bounded on B’s land; B owned, at the time, a piece of land, and had contracted to purchase another piece adjoining, which he occupied as his own, but had received no conveyance of it at the time of tile conveyance to A, although he had paid the price for it; it was held that A’s land was bounded by the land owned by B, and not by that occupiea by him.
    The words “with all the buildings thereon,” in a conveyance of land, have no lega, effect
    This was a real action, pending in Middlesex, in which the demandant counted upon his own seisin, within twenty years, of a parcel of land in Billerica, and on a disseisin by the tenant.
    *As to part of the land demanded, the general issue [*111 ] was pleaded, and tried at the sittings after the last October term, at Cambridge, before the Chief Justice, whose report follows.
    “ On the trial of this issue, it appeared that the demandant’s title was derived from Elizabeth and Alice Jefts, by their deed to him in fee, dated February 18th, 1805 ; that among the bounds of the land so conveyed was the following: “ Beginning at the north-east corner at a stake and stones by Joseph Wilson’s land on the highway leading from the meeting-house to Salem; ” that the grantors also sold “all the buildings on the land standing;” that the said 
      Joseph Wilson was, when thé said deed was executed, seised in fee, and in the actual possession, by virtue of a deed, from the same grantors, of a parcel of land situate to the northward of the premises, the south-eastern corner bound of which was a stake and stones by the same highway, which the tenant insisted were the stake and stones referred to in the demandant’s deed; that in the early part of the year 1804, the same Wilson had contracted with John Jefis, a brother of the said grantors, and for whom he acted as agent, for the purchase of a half acre of land adjoining on the southwardly end of the land he had purchased as aforesaid, and had paid him for it, but no conveyance was made of it to Wilson; that Wilson, relying on said contract, took possession of the said half acre, and fixed a stake and stones at the south-eastern corner thereof, on the same highway, as a corner bound ; that the demandant insists that this last-mentioned stake and stones were those referred to in his said deed ; that Wilson occupied the said half acre for his own use in the years 1804 and 1805, calling it his own ; but he declared on oath, that if questioned as to his title to it, he should have freely stated that he had only contracted for a conveyance, which had not been executed ; that afterwards, in 1806, he applied to the said grantors for a conveyance, who refused to give it, and he then abandoned the occupation of the half acre; that on the same 18th of February, 1805, after the execution of the said deed to the demandant, the same grantors, by a deed duly executed, conveyed to the said John Jefts another parcel of land [*112 ] adjoining on the * southwardly end of the land conveyed as aforesaid to the demandant; that on the 20th of January, 1806, the tenant, having recovered a judgment against the said John Jefts, levied his execution on the northern part of the premises conveyed to the said John as aforesaid, which execution was duly returned and recorded ; the tenant having no knowledge that the said John Jefts had, as agent for the said grantors, contracted with the said Wilson, to sell him the said half acre; that if the demandant’s land was bounded at the first-mentioned stake and stones, there would be a barn only on the land he purchased ; but if it was bounded at the second mentioned stake and stones, there would be on the said land the same barn, and also a dwelling-house ; that in May, 1802, the said grantors purchased in fee all the land comprised in both their said deeds, however they might be bounded, of one Solomon Pollard, who expressly sold them with all the build ings standing thereon, when in fact there were no buildings what ever on those lands, the house and barn aforesaid having been after wards erected ; that if the first-mentioned stake and stones are those referred to in the deed aforesaid to the demandant, then the prem* ises demanded in the writ, are not comprised in that deed, and the demandant has no right to recover; but if the second-mentioned stake and stones are those referred to in the said deed to the demandant, then he has a good right to recover, in this action, the de mauded tenements, the same being comprised in that deed. Upon these facts, which were not contested, I directed the jury that, as the demandant’s land was bounded on a stake and stones by Joseph Wilson’s land, these stake and stones must, in legal construction, be those first mentioned, because they were a corner bound of land which was Joseph Wilson’s; and not those secondly mentioned, because they were a corner of land which was not Joseph Wilson’s, but which he had occupied, without claiming any right or title to hold the same; and therefore that their verdict ought to be for the tenant. The jury found accordingly ; and the demandant moves for a new trial, for this direction.”
   The action was continued nisi, and at this term, no argu ment being had, the opinion of the Court was delivered as follows by

* Parsons, C. J.

A verdict in this action was found [* 113 ] for the tenant, which the demandant moves to set aside, that he may have a new trial.

The point in dispute may be easily stated, without having recourse to all the boundaries mentioned in the case, to understand which a plan might be necessary.

Elizabeth and Alice Jefts were once seised in fee of the several parcels of land mentioned in the case, one of which was claimed by Joseph Wilson, another by the demandant, and a third by John Jefts, by separate deeds from Elizabeth and Alice, and under John Jefts the tenant claims; and to find the issue in the cause, it was necessary to ascertain the north-east corner of the parcel of land conveyed to the demandant by the deed of the said Elizabeth and Alice, dated February 18, 1805. This deed places the north-east corner at a stake and stones by Joseph Wilson’s land, on a certain highway. The next inquiry then, is, Where was Wilson’s land ? He had before purchased his parcel of the same grantors by a deed duly executed, and the stake and stones standing by this land of Wilson’s is agreed. The tenant insists that this stake and stones is the north-east corner of the demandant’s land ; and if it is, the verdict is right. The same Wilson had contracted with John Jefts, the brother and agent of the grantors, and had paid him for half an acre of land to the southward of his first purchase, and adjoining on the same highway, at the south-easterly corner of which was a stake and stones by the same highway, which would be the north-east corner of Crosby’s land, if it bounded northwardl) on the half acre, which he contends that it did ; and if this last stake and stones is the north-east corner of Crosby’s land, the verdict is wrong. The question is, therefore, reduced to this, — whether Crosby’s land adjoined northwardly on Wilson’s first purchase, of which he had a conveyance, or on the half acre, of which he had no conveyance.

Dana for the demandant.

Ward and Jos. Locke for the tenant.

Wilson, after his bargain with John Jefts, occupied the half acre for two years, as he would occupy his own land, including the time when Crosby’s deed was executed; but he did not claim [*114] the land, and would have informed any inquirer * that he had no title to it, but had contracted with John Jefts for one. In 1806, he applied to the owners, Elizabeth and Alice Jefts, for a title, but, they refusing to give him one, he abandoned the occupation. It further appears that Crosby’s deed conveys to him his land, with all the buildings thereon, and if he is bounded on Wilson’s first purchase, there will be only a barn on his land ; but if he is bounded by the half acre, there will be a house also included.

For the tenant it appears that neither the grantors nor Parker had any knowledge that John Jefts had bargained with Wilson for the half acre ; and as to the expression of “ all the buildings,” it was found that the grantors purchased all these parcels of Solomon Pollard, by a deed conveying them with all the buildings thereon, when in fact there were no buildings thereon, they having been erected afterwards ; and that all the land, to which Wilson had any title on record, was his first purchase.

Upon considering this case, we are all of opinion that the verdict is right, because Crosby is bounded northwardly on Wilson’s land, and Wilson’s first purchase is all the land that he in fact owned, and all the land, of which he had any title on record, by which the tenant could ascertain the boundaries, and all the land which the grantors of Crosby, who were also the grantors of Wilson, could contemplate as Wilson’s land. And if the first purchase of Wilson is not a boundary of Crosby’s land, then there will be half an acre between Crosby and Wilson, the property of the grantors, not conveyed, and Crosby’s northern boundary will be on other land of the grantors. As to the words “ and all the buildings thereon,” they are often inserted by unskilful scriveners, without any particular meaning, and in fact have no legal operation. This unskilfulness appears in this case from Pollard’s deed, in which they were intro* duced, when in fact no buildings were on the land.

Judgment according to the verdict.  