Legal Opinion

Smith v. Colby

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided January 16, 1878PublishedCited by 10 opinions

On exceptions from the superior court. Trover, for a fence constructed of 700 feet of pine boards of the value of $12.00, and twelve cedar posts of the value of $3.00. Plea, general issue. Judge Symonds instructed the jury as follows: “ The plaintiff is not entitled to recover for any portion of the fence taken from the land of the town, whether,there by the permission of Potter or not.

Read the full summary

On exceptions from the superior court. Trover, for a fence constructed of 700 feet of pine boards of the value of $12.00, and twelve cedar posts of the value of $3.00. Plea, general issue. Judge Symonds instructed the jury as follows: “ The plaintiff is not entitled to recover for any portion of the fence taken from the land of the town, whether,there by the permission of Potter or not. As matter of law he has no right to recover for any portion of the fence built on the land of the town. “ On the other hand, if any portion of the fence taken by Colby was taken from the land of the plaintiff…

1Opinion of the CourtPeters, J.

The question is, whether an action of trover is maintainable upon the following facts: The defendant was superintendent of the poor house of the town of Brunswick ; the plaintiff, being an adjoining proprietor, located a portion of his fence over upon the land of the town ; the defendant removed the fence under the direction of the selectmen of the town, carrying it some distance away, and refused, upon demand, to return it without the direction or permission of the town officers to do so; it turned out that, in removing the fence which plaintiff had wrongfully *171located over upon the poor…

2Cited by10 opinions

  1. Nanson v. JacobSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
  2. Blackwell v. Laird and LairdMissouri Court of Appeals · 1942
  3. Cubit v. O'DettMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
  4. Kearney v. CluttonMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Robert C. White Live Stock Commission Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API