Kimball v. Hilton
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Motions and Exceptions by Dependants. Writ of Entry. Writ dated October 4, 1895. Defendants pleaded nul disseizin as to a part, estoppel as to a part, and disclaimer as to a part. Plaintiff demurred to defendants’ plea of estoppel. The demurrer was joined by the defendants and was sustained by the court.
Read the full summary
On Motions and Exceptions by Dependants. Writ of Entry. Writ dated October 4, 1895. Defendants pleaded nul disseizin as to a part, estoppel as to a part, and disclaimer as to a part. Plaintiff demurred to defendants’ plea of estoppel. The demurrer was joined by the defendants and was sustained by the court. The jury returned a general verdict for the plaintiff, whereupon the defendants filed a motion for new trial on the evidence reported by the presiding justice, and also filed exceptions to certain rulings of the presiding justice in matters of law; and subsequently, at that and the next…
1Opinion of the CourtSavage, J.
Real action. The tenants plead nul disseizin, and under a brief statement, disclaim as to a portion of the demanded premises, and as to the remainder, claim an estoppel by virtue of a former judgment in an action of trespass quare clausum, in which these tenants were plaintiffs, and this demandant, and others, her agents and servants, were defendants, and in which the then plaintiffs recovered judgment upon a verdict of guilty. The brief statement also alleges that in the former action this demandant, then defendant, pleaded that the title and right of possession of the locus where the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Morse v. MarshallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
3Cited by9 opinions
- Susi v. DavisSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1935
- Bray v. SpencerSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1951
- McCausland v. YorkSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1934
- Green v. Beaver State Contractors, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1970
- Martin v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1942
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.