Shores v. Bell
Supreme Court of Vermont
Trespass. Heard on a referee’s report, September Term, 1884, Essex County, Ross, J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The referee found as to .the rebuilding of the fence: “ The defendant built over the fence above the Lunenburgh road some four or five years ago, and the fence below the road about three years ago.
Read the full summary
Trespass. Heard on a referee’s report, September Term, 1884, Essex County, Ross, J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The referee found as to .the rebuilding of the fence: “ The defendant built over the fence above the Lunenburgh road some four or five years ago, and the fence below the road about three years ago. When he was building over the first piece, the plaintiff told him he did not want him to build any more fence on his land, and stepped along to take up a post he had put down. Whether this post was off the line, and if so, which way, does not appear. “ The defendant forbade…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Rovos:, Ch. J.
This was an action of trespass guare clausum fregit, but was really to settle the divisional line between the parties.
The referee has found the line substantially as claimed by the defendant. The only act shown to have been commit*322ted by the defendant which could be claimed as wrongful, was the rebuilding of a fence in the same place, as nearly as could be ascertained, where a fence was first built in 1860, and had ever since been maintained, and to which the parties in interest had ever since occupied. The fence was built under an…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Smith v. BullockSupreme Court of Vermont · 1844
- Clark v. DustinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1880