This case differs materially from that of Stearns v. Woodbury, (ante, 27,) decided at the present term. In that case, the plaintiff failed to prove any valid title to the locus in quo, either by possession or otherwise. In this case, he offered to give in evidence a deed from Aaron Warriner to Moses Bliss and others, by which a certain piece of land, including the locus in quo, was conveyed to them in trust, to and for the use of the inhabitants of the first parish in Springfield, and their heirs forever, for a burying yard. The plaintiff’s title is derived by deed from the said parish, dated May 20th 1842. This evidence was rejected by the court at the trial, on the ground, that although the locus was included in the description in the deed, no legal title was conveyed by said deed to said parish.
In support of this ruling of the court, several objections have been made to the plaintiff’s title. In the first place, it is objected, that the legal estate was vested in the trustees, and that the parish, if they had any estate in the premises as a corporation, had only an equitable estate. But the .plaintiff’s counsel contend that the legal estate vested in the parish, by virtue of St. 27 Hen. 8, c. 10, called the statute of uses. The argument is, that a mere nominal or formal trust was created by this conveyance, but that, substantially, it
Another objection to the plaintiff’s title is, that the trustees took only a life estate by the conveyance. But this grant was in trust “ for the use of the inhabitants of the first parish m Springfield, and their heirs forever, for a burying yard.” And it is a well settled principle, that as the immediate grantees took the. legal estate in trust, it must be commensurate to
The remaining objection to the plaintiff’s title is, that the trust created by the conveyance from Warriner was for the use of the individual inhabitants of the parish, and not for the use of the parish -in their corporate capacity. But such a construction would be manifestly inconsistent with the purpose for which the conveyance was made, as it would limit the use to the inhabitants of the parish for the time being, and would exclude from the benefit of the trust all inhabitants of the parish who should become such subsequently to the conveyance, which certainly never could have been the object of the trust. And such was not the construction contended for by any of the inhabitants of the parish, previously to the present controversy. There was evidence at the trial, tending to show that, more than sixty years before, the parish had made provision for fencing the burying ground, and that, more than forty years before, the parish had built a fence on the top of the bank, and then enclosed the burying yard. The parish, therefore, have had the undisturbed possession of the burying yard for more than forty years, and probably ever since the conveyance from Warriner. And this possession is to be considered as extending to all the land conveyed by the deed of trust for the use of the parish ; it being a well settled principle, that when one enters on land, claiming title to the same under a deed of conveyance, and thereby acquires a seizin, it shall extend to the whole parcel to which he has right. Proprietors of Kenrebeck Purchase v.
How, and from whom, Warriner derived his title, does not appear; and it is not necessary that it should appear. Every presumption is to be made in support of such an ancient grant, followed by such a long and undisturbed possession. Few titles can be traced back to the first settlement of the country.
New trial in this court