Richardson v. York
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
This was an action of replevin for a quantity of mill-logs, and came before the Court upon a statement of facts agreed by the parties, in substance, as follows.
Read the full summary
This was an action of replevin for a quantity of mill-logs, and came before the Court upon a statement of facts agreed by the parties, in substance, as follows. Isaac York, one of the defendants, owned a small farm in Standish, of about thirty-five acres, about half of which was woodland, with some timber upon it, and the residue improved land, with the buildings and fences thereon much out of repair; and on the 14th of Oct. 1831, by deed of warranty conveyed the same to his son Joseph. This deed was in common form, except that immediately following the description of the land, and preceding…
1Opinion of the Court
After a continuance, for advisement, the opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Emery J.
The great question in this case is, whether the logs replevied are the property of the plaintiff, so as to draw to him the right of maintaining the action. For it is certain, he could not rightfully have entered to cut them himself without the assent of Isaac York, one of the defendants.
In the language of Heath J., in Attersoll v. Stevens, 1 Taunt. 183, at p. 198, it is stated, as common learning, that every lessee of land, whether for life or years, is liable in an action of waste to his lessor, for all…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Peyton v. DesmondCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
- Hurst v. HurstWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1874
- McGonigle v. AtchisonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1885
- Wilmot v. LathropSupreme Court of Vermont · 1895
- Brady v. . BradySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.