As before stated, the ownership of land which is subject to use as a highway is, at common law, in individuals, the public having merely the use thereof, but in this country, the ownership of the land, the "fee" as it is called, is quite frequently in the state or municipality in trust for the public. In the latter case, a conveyance of land as bounded "by" or "along" the highway can, of course, vest in the grantee no part of the land occupied by the highway, and he takes merely to the outer edge thereof. When, however, the grantor owns part or the whole of the land subject to the highway use, the question frequently arises whether his conveyance passes land within the highway, and, in deciding this question, the same considerations apply as in the analogous case of a conveyance of land bounded by water, the soil under which belongs to the grantor.

A conveyance of land as bounded "on" or "by," or as running "along" a highway, will convey to the

90. Litchfield v. Ferguson, 141 Mass. 97, 6 N. E. 721; Hathaway v. Wilson, 123 Mass. 359; Nixon v. Walter, 41 N. J. Eq. 103, 3 Atl. 385; Trustees of East Hampton v. Kirk, 68 N. Y. 459.

91. Saltonstall v. Long Wharf, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 195.

92. County of St. Clair v.

Livingston, 23 Wall. (U. S.) 46, 64; Berry v. Snyder, 3 Bush (Ky.) 26, 96 Am. Dec. 219; Pike v. Munroe, 36 Me. 309, 58 Am. Dec. 751; Cold Spring Iron Works v. Inhabitants of Tolland, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 492; Rex v. Johnson, 5 N. H. 520, 22 Am. Dec. 472; Kent v. Taylor, center line of the highway, if the grantor owns thereto, unless a contrary intention appears from the conveyance,93 and this, even though the length of the side boundary lines, as given, would carry them only so far as the edge of the highway.94 So, when land abutting on a highway is conveyed by terms of description which make no mention of the highway, as when it is conveyed by a number on a plat, the grantor's interest in the land within the highway limits, it has been held, presumably passes.95 But if, without any men64 N. H. 489, 13 Atl. 419; Luce v. Carley, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 451, 35 Am. Dec. 637; Grant v. White, 63 Pa. St. 271; Noble v. Cunningham Mcmull Eq. 289.

93. Columbus & W. Ry. Co. v. Witherow, 82 Ala. 190, 3 So. 23; Kittle v. Pfeiffer, 22 Cal. 484; Smith v. Horn, 70 Fla. 484, 70 So. 435; Silvey v. Mccool, 86 Ga. 1, 12 S. E. 175; La Salle Varnish Co. v. Glos, 254 111. 326, 98 N. E. 538; City of Dubuque v. Maloney, 9 Iowa, 451, 74 Am. Dec. 358; Blalock v. Atwood, 154 Ky. 394, 46 L. R. A. 3, 157 S. W. 694; White v. Godfrey, 97 Mass. 472; Hamlin v. Pairpont Mfg. Co., 141 Mass. 51, 6 N. E. 531; White v. Jefferson, 110 Minn. 276, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 778, 784, 124 N. W. 373, 125 N. W. 262; Thomas v. Hunt, 134 Mo. 392, 32 L. R. A. 857, 35 S. W. 581; In re Ladue, 118 N. Y. 213, 23 N. E. 465; Paul v. Carver, 26 Pa. 223; Cronin v. Janesville Traction Co. 163 Wis. 436, 158 N. W. 254.

And so a conveyance of land, "south of the road" has been held to convey a part of the highway. Helmer v. Castle, 109

111. 664

94. Moody v. Palmer, 50 Cal. 31; Oxton v. Groves, 68 Me. 371, 28 Am. Rep. 75; Newhall v. Ireson, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 595, 54 Am. Dec. 790; Mckenzie v. Gleason, 184 Mass. 452, 100 Am. St. Rep. 566, 69 N. E. 1076; Paul v. Carver, 26 Pa. St. 223; Wegge v. Madler, 129 Wis. 412, 109 N. W. 223. But Chicago v. Rumsey, 87 111. 348 appears to be contra.

95. Berridge v. Ward, 10 C. B. N. S. 400; Dickinson v. Arkansas City Imp. Co., 77 Ark. 570, 113 Am. St. Rep. 170, 92 S. W. 21; Champlin v. Pendleton, 13 Conn. 23; Gear v. Barnum, 37 Conn. 229; Florida Southern Railway Co. v. Brown, 23 Fla. 104, 1 So. 512; Owen v. Brook-port, 208 111. 35, 69 N. E. 952; Cox v. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co., 48 Ind. 178; City of Dubuque v. Maloney, 9 Iowa, 450, 74 Am. Dec. 358; Grant v. Moon 128 Mo. 43, 30 S. W. 328; White's Bank of Buffalo v. Nichols, 64 N. Y. 65, Dobson v. Hohenadel, 148 Pa. 367, 23 Atl. 1128; Faulkner v. Rocket, 33 R. I. 152, 80 At. 380; Durbin v. Roanoke Bldg. Co., 107 Va. 753, 60 S. E. 86; Kneeland v. Van Valkenburgh, 46 Wis. 434, tion of the highway, the limits as given clearly exclude it, as when they bound the property conveyed by a fence or wall which, as a matter of fact, coincides with the marginal line of the highway, no land within the highway will, it seems, pass.96

A description of the land as bounded by or on the "side," "margin," or "edge"of the highway has more usually been regarded as showing an intention to exclude the land within the highway limits from the operation of the conveyance,97 and a reference to the "line" of the road, either without any prefix,98 or with a prefix, such as South or West, showing that the side of the road is meant,99 has been given a like effect. In some states, however, a different view, that the reference to the side or margin of the road does not exclude the highway, has been adopted.1

32 Am. Rep. 719, 1 N. W. 63; Contra. Sutherland v. Jackson, 32 Me. 80; Hanson v. Campbell's Lessee, 20 Md. 223. Compare Ho-boken Land & Improvement Co, v. Kerrigan. 31 N. J. Law 13.

96. Warren v. Blake, 54 Me. 276, 89 Am. Dec. 748; Tyler v. Hammond, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 193.

97. Alameda Macadamizing Co. v. Williams, 70 Cal. 534, 12 Pac. 530; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Gould, 67 Md. 60, 8 Atl. 754; Tyler v. Hammond, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 193; Holmes v. Turner's Falls Co., 142 Mass. 590, 8 N. B. 646; Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. Heisel, 38 Mich. 62; Betcher v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 110 Minn. 228, 124 N. W. 1096; Jackson v. Hathaway, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 447; Blackman v. Riley, 138 N. Y. 318, 34 N. E. 214; Trowbridge v. Ehrich, 191 N. Y. 361, 84 N. E. 297; Hughes v. Providence & W. R. Co., 2 R.

I. 508; Iron Mountain R. Co. v. Bingham, 87 Tenn. 522, 4 L. R. A. 622, 11 S. W. 705; Buck v. Squiers, 22 Vt. 484.

98. Hamlin v. Pairpont Mfg. Co. 141 Mass. 51, 6 N. E. 531; Harriman v. Whitney, 196 Mass. 466, 82 N. E. 671; Lough v. Machlin, 40 Ohio St. 322; Cole v. Haynes, 22 Vt. 588; Clayton v. Gilmer County Court, 58 W. Va. 253, 2 L. R. A. N. S. 598, 52 S. E. 103; Contra. Helmer v. Castle, 109 111. 664; Kneeland v. Van Valkenburgh, 46 Wis. 434, 32 Am. Rep. 719, 1 N. W. 63.