Collins v. Brittingham
Superior Court of Delaware
Action between Joshua F. Collins and William T. Brittingham. On appeal (No. 41, October Term, 1913) from a judgment of a justice of the peace to recover penalty for removing a landmark (a wooden post) in Georgetown Hundred, under the statute, Revised Code (1893) Chapter 56, Section 1, page 477. Plaintiff claimed that the landmark or post indicating a corner of his land and defendant’s land had rotted away, and having placed a new post in the exact location of the old,…
Read the full summary
Action between Joshua F. Collins and William T. Brittingham. On appeal (No. 41, October Term, 1913) from a judgment of a justice of the peace to recover penalty for removing a landmark (a wooden post) in Georgetown Hundred, under the statute, Revised Code (1893) Chapter 56, Section 1, page 477. Plaintiff claimed that the landmark or post indicating a corner of his land and defendant’s land had rotted away, and having placed a new post in the exact location of the old, defendant moved the same about three feet from its original location over on plaintiff’s land. Plaintiff offered in evidence…
1Opinion of the Court
Conrad, J.,
charging the jury:
Gentlemen of the jury:—[1] The statute of this state under which this action was brought reads as follows: “No person shall cut, fell, alter or remove any boundary tree or other landmark * * * under penalty of forfeiting fifty dollars to the party wronged.” Chapter 56, § 1, p. 477, Revised Code (1893).
Justices of the peace are given jurisdiction over penalties and forfeitures, so the original suit was properly brought before a justice of the peace, and an appeal taken to this court is the case which is now before you.
[2] A landmark is defined to be “a mark to…