Legal Opinion

Fall v. Fall

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided March 18, 1905PublishedCited by 3 opinions

On exceptions by plaintiff. Neal action. The case is stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtPeabody, J.

This is a real action brought to recover possession of a lot of woodland situated in Berwick, York County, Maine.

The plea is the general issue.

The demandant offered evidence of the declarations of Mary Fall, made while she held the record title to the demanded premises, that she was not the owner of the lot described in the writ and that the demandant was the owner. This evidence was excluded and exceptions taken by the plaintiff; and the court ordered a nonsuit, to which the plaintiff also excepted. The case is before the law court on these exceptions with agreement on the part of the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Norton v. PettiboneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1829
  2. Dorsey v. Dorsey's HeirsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1813
  3. Pickering v. ReynoldsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
  4. Keener v. KauffmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1860

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Sargent v. CoolidgeSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1979
  2. Shaw v. McKenzieSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1932
  3. Bradstreet v. BradstreetSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1962

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API