Legal Opinion

Prescott v. Nevers

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine

Decided May 15, 1827PublishedCited by 30 opinions

Trespass for cutting down 4000 timber trees on lot No. 1, in the fifth division of lands drawn to the right of David Chandler, in the township formerly called New Sun-cook, now composing the towns of Lovell and Sweden, whereof the plaintiffs [James Prescott and another] and defendants are tenants in common, against the statute of the 15th of March, 1821 (chapter 35). Plea, the general issue of not guilty.

Read the full summary

Trespass for cutting down 4000 timber trees on lot No. 1, in the fifth division of lands drawn to the right of David Chandler, in the township formerly called New Sun-cook, now composing the towns of Lovell and Sweden, whereof the plaintiffs [James Prescott and another] and defendants are tenants in common, against the statute of the 15th of March, 1821 (chapter 35). Plea, the general issue of not guilty. At the trial it appeared in evidence, that the township was granted to certain proprietors by resolves of the legislature of Massachusetts, passed on the 5th of February, 1774, and 13th of…

1Opinion of the Court

STORY, Circuit Justice.

Upon the first question, there does not seem to be any real ground for doubt. Notwithstanding the language of Lord Mansfield, in Taylor v. Horde, 1 Burrows, GO, what constitutes a disseisin is, at least in this country, well settled. I remember to have heard a learned judge (the late Chief Justice Parsons), say, that Lord Mansfield had not gone to the bottom of this matter, and had puzzled himself unnecessarily. This observation attracted my attention at an early period of my professional life, and I have made some researches to ascertain its accuracy. This is not,…

2Cited by30 opinions

  1. Wooden v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2022
  2. Todd v. BrunerTexas Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Elder v. McClaskeyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1895
  4. Clapp v. BromaghamCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1827
  5. Hicks v. ColemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864

25 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