Berry v. Garland
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Trespass, for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close, in Moultonborough, on the 16th day of July, 1846, and cutting and carrying away ten tons of the plaintiff’s grass, &c. The defendants pleaded the general issue, together with-, a brief statement, alleging that the locus in quo was the soil and freehold of Samuel Emerson and John Coe, and that the defendants entered and did the acts complained of under a license from them.
Read the full summary
Trespass, for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close, in Moultonborough, on the 16th day of July, 1846, and cutting and carrying away ten tons of the plaintiff’s grass, &c. The defendants pleaded the general issue, together with-, a brief statement, alleging that the locus in quo was the soil and freehold of Samuel Emerson and John Coe, and that the defendants entered and did the acts complained of under a license from them. It was admitted that the lands in question were originally a part of the common and undivided lands in the town of iMoultonborough, and the proprietors’ records…
1Opinion of the CourtWoods, J.
This action is trespass quare clausum fregit, and the defence relied upon is the alleged ownership of the locus in quo, by Samuel Emerson and John Coe, by whose direction and authority the defendants did the acts of which complaint is made. It is not necessary for the proper determination of this cause, to decide whether the deed of Mason to Samuel Emerson conveyed to Emerson a valid title to the premises or not. And it is equally unnecessary to consider the effect of the votes of the proprietors, of the *47817th of March, 1810, and the 31st of May, 1815, as constituting a conveyance of the locus…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- McCormick v. BarnumNew York Supreme Court · 1833
- Kip v. NortonNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Jackson ex dem. Livingston v. FreerNew York Supreme Court · 1819
- Dibble v. RogersNew York Supreme Court · 1835
- Prescott v. HawkinsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1841