Alukonis v. Kashulines

Although there must be a new trial for reasons hereinafter stated, the Court correctly denied the defendants’ motions for a nonsuit and directed verdict.

Upon the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff, the jury could find that she and her predecessors in title had fenced in the disputed two rod strip of land along the southerly boundary of her property, cultivated it and in general exercised open, undisputed and frequent dominion over it for thirty-five years whenever the occasion arose. This use during this entire period was sufficient to give the plaintiff title. Jean v. Arsenault, 85 N.…