Morse v. Churchill
Supreme Court of Vermont
Teespass, quare clausum fregit. The case was referred to a referee, who reported as follows: “ The plaintiffs and defendant are adjoining proprietors of land in the town of Leicester, and were on the 1st day of June, 1867,. the plaintiffs’ land lying south of the defendant’s.
Read the full summary
Teespass, quare clausum fregit. The case was referred to a referee, who reported as follows: “ The plaintiffs and defendant are adjoining proprietors of land in the town of Leicester, and were on the 1st day of June, 1867,. the plaintiffs’ land lying south of the defendant’s. “ The plaintiffs (¿aim title to the locus in quo, by deed from E. H. Weeks, administrator of the estate of Gilbert Noyes deceased,, deed dated March 27,1860. The defendant claims title by deed, from J. L. Leonard, dated November 19,1863, and also by pos-sessory title, acquired by more than fifteen years uninterrupted…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Peok, J.
As the referee finds that the tree, the cutting of which constitutes the substantial trespass complained of, stood upon the plaintiffs’ side of the true original division line between the parties, and that it stood on the plaintiffs’ land, unless the defendant had gained title to the strip in question by possession, *652the question is presented, whether, upon the facts found by the referee, the defendant had so gained title.
The occupancy of the strip in question by the defendant and his grantors, between the true division line and the zig-zag…
2Cited by5 opinions
- City of Rock Springs v. SturmWyoming Supreme Court · 1929
- Ewing v. TannerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1937
- Albertina v. Kapiolani Estate, Ltd.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1902
- Soule v. BarlowSupreme Court of Vermont · 1877
- Brown v. ClarkSupreme Court of Vermont · 1901