The case revolves around a property dispute concerning trespassing on land claimed by the Conarys, with the central issue being the accurate location of boundaries for three interrelated shore lots: the Bouchard lot, the Perkins lot, and the Mitchell lot, all originally subdivided and conveyed by Wyman Conary.

The plaintiffs (Conarys) alleged the defendants (Perkins and Mitchells) trespassed by digging a trench and well and setting a pipeline on land the Conarys claimed as part of the Mitchell lot. The Conarys’ claim was based on the assertion that a prior court decision (Perkins v. Conary, 295 A.2d 644 (Me. 1972)) erred in establishing the northeasterly corner of the Bouchard lot, which in turn affected the location of the Perkins’ and Mitchells’ lot boundaries.

A referee was appointed, and the Superior Court adopted the referee’s report, finding for the plaintiffs and awarding compensatory damages, and also finding one defendant (George Perkins) in contempt for dumping debris on the disputed land.

The defendants appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine sustained the appeal, vacating both the compensatory damages and contempt judgments, and remanding the case.

The Court held that:

• The prior court decision (Perkins v. Conary) settled the location of the northeasterly boundary of the Perkins lot and was binding on Mr. Conary and his sons (the plaintiffs) due to privity, not only for the Perkins lot but also for the Mitchell lot, whose southeasterly corner was tied to the Perkins’ northeasterly corner. The issue of the corner’s location from the previous case was considered tried by implied consent under Rule 15(b), M.R. Civ. P.
• The referee erred by adopting a survey (Shyka’s) that disregarded established rules for boundary determination. Specifically, the Shyka survey:
  • Rejected the previous court’s established location for the Perkins’ northeasterly corner.
  • Disregarded the rule that boundaries must be established in descending order of control: monuments, courses, distances, and quantity. Shyka incorrectly prioritized distances over monuments or courses when inconsistencies arose.
  • Essentially reformed the Mitchell deed by assuming its terms (like “right angles” and “parallel”) were incorrect, which is not permissible without an action for reformation.
• The Court found that the three deeds (Bouchard, Perkins, Mitchell) indicated an intent for a single straight easterly line for all properties.

Therefore, the court’s adoption of the referee’s erroneous report led to an incorrect judgment. The case was sent back to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision.

Summary by Gemini