Profile & Flume Hotels Co. v. Bickford
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Trespass quare clausum. Trial at the September term, 1902, of the superior court before Wallace, C. J. The plaintiffs described, their close as Lot No. 11, Range 8, in Franconia.
Read the full summary
Trespass quare clausum. Trial at the September term, 1902, of the superior court before Wallace, C. J. The plaintiffs described, their close as Lot No. 11, Range 8, in Franconia. This lot contains about 160 ácres, and was at one time divided into four quarters or sections, the first north quarter being a parallelogram off the north side of the lot, the second north quarter a similar tract just below the first north quarter, the first south quarter a parallelogram off the south side of the lot, and the second south quarter the tract between the first south and second north quarters. Each…
1Opinion of the CourtParsons, C. J.
The fact that the plaintiffs described their close as a single tract did not necessarily put the title to the whole in issue, and the ruling to that effect at the trial was erroneous. Cassidy v. Mudgett, 71 N. H. 491. The gist of the action of trespass quare clausum is the disturbance to the possession. Either party who maintains against the other his right to the possession of that portion of the premises where the trespass was committed is entitled to judgment, without reference to the title or right of possession in the balance of the land described in the declaration or plea. The…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Rich v. RichNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- King v. DunnNew York Supreme Court · 1839
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cote v. CompanySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1933
- Lortie v. BoisSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1979
- Zogoplos v. BrownSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1929