Whitney v. Bickford

2 Citing cases

  1. Willson v. Legro

    74 A. 181 (N.H. 1909)

    But the deed conveyed all the land the defendants intended to convey and all they agreed to sell. Whitney v. Bickford, 69 N.H. 527. From the description it is apparent they intended to convey the irregular piece of land which was conveyed to them by the deeds from Rogers and Eastman (Newmarket Mfg. Co. v. Pendergast, 24 N.H. 54, 65), for the consideration named in the deed. The consideration was not apportioned among the several lots mentioned in the description.

  2. G. C. S. F. Ry. Co. v. Dwyer

    84 Tex. 194 (Tex. 1892)   Cited 55 times

    Railway v. Dwyer, 75 Tex. 572; Railway v. Baird, 75 Tex. 256; Railway v. Williams, 77 Tex. 121; Rev. Stats., arts. 4251-4254, 4226, 4227; Hutch. on Carr., sec. 478; 2 Rorer on Railways, 1263; Schoul. on Bail., sec. 610; Knight v. Railway (R.I.), 9 Am. and Eng. Ry. Cases, 90; Railway v. Murray (Ga.), 11 S.E. Rep., 779; Crossman v. Railway, 149 Mass. 196; 6 Railway and Corp. Law Jour., 27; 40 Am. and Eng. Ry. Cases, 136; Schneider v. Evans, 25 Wis. 241; Vaughn v. Railway (R.I.), 9, Am. and Eng. Ry. Cases, 41; Whitney v. Bickford, 105 Mass. 271; Bird v. Railway, 72 Ga. 655; Potts v. Railway, 131 Mass. 455; Patten v. Railway, 29 Fed. Rep., 590; Briggs v. Railway, 6 Allen, 246; Wolf v. Hough, 22 Kans. 659; Wells v. Thomas, 27 Mo., 17; Price v. Railway (Colo.), 37 Am. and Eng. Ry. Cases, 626; Mfg. Co. v. Railway (N.C.), 42 Am. and Eng. Ry. Cases, 498. 3.