Knight v. Coleman
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Trespass quare clausum. The acts complained of in the plaintiff’s declaration, were admitted to have been done, but the defendant claimed the locus in quo as his own soil and freehold. It appeared at the trial in the court below, that between the lands of the plaintiff and defendant a cove juts in from the Piscataqua river, a great part of which consists of flats, or is bare at low water.
Read the full summary
Trespass quare clausum. The acts complained of in the plaintiff’s declaration, were admitted to have been done, but the defendant claimed the locus in quo as his own soil and freehold. It appeared at the trial in the court below, that between the lands of the plaintiff and defendant a cove juts in from the Piscataqua river, a great part of which consists of flats, or is bare at low water. That the plaintiff’s farm lies upon the east side of the cove, and the defendant’s upon the west. It appeared, also, that a fence had been kept up upon the west side of the cove next the defendant’s land,…
1Opinion of the CourtWilcox, J.
We think that the instructions were sufficiently favorable to the plaintiff. If the fence had been maintained for twenty years in the same place, the plaintiff *120all the time claiming to own to the fence, that would make an absolute title by adverse possession. But the case does not so find. It is stated that the fence had been kept up for a long series of years nearly in the same place, but not permanent and stationary. Now there is no legal presumption from this in favor of the plaintiff’s title. It is only evidence to be submitted to the jury. The case states that the locus in quo would fall…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Mastroianni v. WercinskiSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2009
- Starvish v. FarleySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1975