Hunter v. Emerson
Supreme Court of Vermont
Appear in Chancery. Heard on master’s report and the orator’s exceptions thereto, at the March Term, 1902, Washington County, Start, Chancellor. Decree, pro forma, for the orator. The defendants excepted. The report of the master shows that the defendant Thomas Emerson and his predecessors in title, had, for more than thirty years, been in' the open, notorious, and adverse possession of the spring, and land about the same included within the fences.
Read the full summary
Appear in Chancery. Heard on master’s report and the orator’s exceptions thereto, at the March Term, 1902, Washington County, Start, Chancellor. Decree, pro forma, for the orator. The defendants excepted. The report of the master shows that the defendant Thomas Emerson and his predecessors in title, had, for more than thirty years, been in' the open, notorious, and adverse possession of the spring, and land about the same included within the fences. Whatever right the defendants may have acquired by prescription is limited to' their enjoyment of that right. Gould on Waters, s. 342; Jones…
1Opinion of the CourtTyler, J.
It appears by the master’s report that the orator bwned two pieces of land, adjoining eadi other, which he bought of one Gouldsbury in 1890 and 1895, respectively, and that he built a house upon the first piece soon after its purchase; that the defendants, since 1880, have lived in the house then bought by said Thomas Emerson of one Rice, whose title is traced back to' 1850. It further appears that the defend*175ants, since 1880, and those who had owned and occupied the house before them for forty years prior thereto, had obtained all the water necessary for domestic purposes from a “log spring”…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Plimpton v. ConverseSupreme Court of Vermont · 1871
- Eddy v. St. MarsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1881
- O'Neil v. BlodgettSupreme Court of Vermont · 1880
3Cited by2 opinions
- Jobling v. TuttleSupreme Court of Kansas · 1907
- Fraser v. NerneySupreme Court of Vermont · 1915