Crowell v. Bebee
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an aetion of trespass, for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close, in B.arnard, and cutting timber. Plea — Not guilty. The locus, in quo was a strip of land, lying between two lines, one running from a birch tree, in the N. W. corner of lot numbered 28, (as claimed by the plaintiff,) southerly; the other, from a point east of said birch tree.
Read the full summary
This was an aetion of trespass, for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close, in B.arnard, and cutting timber. Plea — Not guilty. The locus, in quo was a strip of land, lying between two lines, one running from a birch tree, in the N. W. corner of lot numbered 28, (as claimed by the plaintiff,) southerly; the other, from a point east of said birch tree. On the trial of the cause, in the County Court, the plaintiff gave evidence of title, in those under whom he claimed, to lot No. 28, in the town of Barnard, which is spoken of in the deeds, as “York land.” The defendant gave evidence of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Royce, J.
There is no occasion to discuss the question of acquiescence, as distinguished from that of possessory title. As a general rule, it is doubtless true, that an admission by a party of a mistaken line for the true one, has no legal effect upon his title ; and that a mutual recognition of a wrong line by adjoining proprietors, and their acquiescence in such line, unless accompanied by possession of one, or both, according to it, and that continued for fifteen years, are not conclusive as to their respective rights. The principle is well settled,…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Miller v. Mills CountySupreme Court of Iowa · 1900
- Amey v. HallSupreme Court of Vermont · 1962
- Storrs v. FeickWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1884
- Hodges v. EddySupreme Court of Vermont · 1865
- D'Orazio Et Ux. v. PashbySupreme Court of Vermont · 1930
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.