Royal v. Chandler
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions. This was a real action brought to settle the location of the dividing line between the parties. The exceptions, by the defendant, relate to the admissibility of certain questions and answers in the deposition of one Tinker, offered by the plaintiff and admitted by the court against the defendant’s objections.
Read the full summary
On exceptions. This was a real action brought to settle the location of the dividing line between the parties. The exceptions, by the defendant, relate to the admissibility of certain questions and answers in the deposition of one Tinker, offered by the plaintiff and admitted by the court against the defendant’s objections. These questions and answers contained the declarations of one Enoch Jones, who at the time of the trial, and also when the deposition was taken was deceased, made in his lifetime while he owned and occupied certain land bounded by the line in dispute, while upon his land…
1Opinion of the CourtLibbey, J.
This is a writ of entry. The parties are owners of adjoining lands, in Auburn, which are parts of original lot number one, formerly in Poland, according to Bakerstown survey. In 1820, said lot was owned by Josiah Little, who, February 14, 1822, convoyed to Jonathan Chandler, Jr., father of the defendant, fifty acres off of the northeasterly end of said lot, bounded on the southwest by a line parallel with the northeast line of the lot, and sixty-six rods distant therefrom. The contention between the parties is the true location of this line. February 3, 1829, said Chandler conveyed to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Baker v. PetrinSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1953
- Backer v. GowenNevada Supreme Court · 1957
- Starbird v. JohnsonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1974