Seavey v. Preble
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On motion for a new trial, because the verdict for the plaintiff for $35 was against law and evidence. There were exceptions filed to the ruling that the action (trespass quare clausum) could be maintained although the locus in quo was in the occupation of a tenant at will by whose license the defendant entered ; but as the court declares the law well settled on this point no further statement of it is necessary. The facts all appear by the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtWalton, J.
We perceive no objection to the form of the action in this case. It is well settled that trespass quare clausum *121fregit, may be maintained by the owner of real estate for an injury to the freehold, notwithstanding it was in the possession of a tenant at will at the time of the alleged injury, Davis v. Nash, 32 Maine, 411.
But we think the verdict is clearly against evidence.
When the small-pox or any other contagious disease exists in any town or city the law demands the utmost vigilance to prevent its spread. “All possible care” are the words of the statute. E. S., c. 14, § 30.
To accomplish…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Commonwealth v. CapitoloSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- State v. RacskowskiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1913
- Commonwealth v. CapitoloSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949