Proprietors of Kennebeck Purchase v. Call
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of trespass guare clausum fregit, in which it was alleged, that on the first day of January, 1794, and on divers days and times between that day and the day of the purchase of the writ, (Nov. 11, 1799,) the defendant broke and entered the close of the plaintiffs, (describing and bounding a tract of land two miles in length and one and a half in breadth,) and cut and carried away their trees thereon, standing and growing, &c.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass guare clausum fregit, in which it was alleged, that on the first day of January, 1794, and on divers days and times between that day and the day of the purchase of the writ, (Nov. 11, 1799,) the defendant broke and entered the close of the plaintiffs, (describing and bounding a tract of land two miles in length and one and a half in breadth,) and cut and carried away their trees thereon, standing and growing, &c. The defendant pleaded not guilty.
1Opinion of the CourtSedgwick, J.
You must show an exemplification of the resolve, if required ; and you must also show the original deed of release. The Court do not take notice of private acts, nor is the printed book of the printers to the General Court evidence of such acts, as it is of public acts. Sewall, J. This release creates no seisin ; but you may show a possession in the proprietors independent of the release.
* The proprietors’ book of records was then produced, [ * 484 ] by which it appeared, that at a meeting of the proprietors in January, 1764, a standing committee was appointed to employ a surveyor to lay out…
2Cited by23 opinions
- Core v. FaupelWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1884
- Brodsky v. FineMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
- Cowden v. CuttingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1959
- Byers v. DanleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1871
- Case v. ShepherdNew York Supreme Court · 1800
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.