Symonds v. Harris
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Trespass guare clausum. The plaintiffs claim to be tenants in common with one Greorge Blake of the mill, privllego and machinery for a sash and blind factory, in New Gloucester, described in the writ, which was dated Nov. 29, 1859. Each defendant pleaded the general issue separately.
Read the full summary
Trespass guare clausum. The plaintiffs claim to be tenants in common with one Greorge Blake of the mill, privllego and machinery for a sash and blind factory, in New Gloucester, described in the writ, which was dated Nov. 29, 1859. Each defendant pleaded the general issue separately. Harris, by brief statement, alleged that he was the owner in whole or in part of the premises, that the defendants were not tenants in common, and that Blake was never a tenant in common therein. George Mayberry and B. S. Benson, also defendants, pleaded that whatever was done by them was done as servants and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Rice, J..Trespass quare clausum. The estate was originally the sole property of Thomas Harris. On this estate, which consisted of a mill privilege, and a mill called the "sash and blind factory,” with the machinery therein, the plaintiff and also one George Blake, on the 16th Dec., 1858, had caused executions, which they severally held against said Harris, to be levied. On these executions certain undivided portions of the estate were assigned to each of said .execution creditors. It is admitted that the levy of Blake was invalid, thus leaving that…
2Cited by9 opinions
- McCord v. Oakland Quicksilver Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1883
- Foisy v. BishopSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1967
- Shepard v. PettitSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Buchanan v. JencksSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1916
- Mollie Gibson Consolidated Mining & Milllng Co. v. McNicholsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1911
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.